Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby amz » Fri, 18 May 2018, 07:02

Yes some parts of the decision just cherry pick whatever judges liked for their reasoning :) the part with wiki /espn is part from a long list of websites where 7s and Fakaosilea isn't listed.

Also the part with the fact was not explained is a speculation, they identified that nothing was said about informing the player (but nobody bought this up into the dispute, was a non-issue) and assumed he wasn't properly informed. This was not debated at all yet is the main reason to punish Romania.

Posts: 12
Joined: Fri, 14 Jul 2017, 07:49
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby radu florea » Fri, 18 May 2018, 07:58

amz wrote:Yes some parts of the decision just cherry pick whatever judges liked for their reasoning :) the part with wiki /espn is part from a long list of websites where 7s and Fakaosilea isn't listed.

Also the part with the fact was not explained is a speculation, they identified that nothing was said about informing the player (but nobody bought this up into the dispute, was a non-issue) and assumed he wasn't properly informed. This was not debated at all yet is the main reason to punish Romania.


Come on, it was on Baia Mare website...

Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby amz » Fri, 18 May 2018, 08:01

Was a piece of news from 2014. I am looking on google about the player since the scandal broke out and I missed it until someone posted it on facebook. Baia Mare writes 2-3 news weekly, make a calculation how many news were on the website since 2014..still, the assumption with informing the player was not discussed at all and could be an oversight in an appeal.

Posts: 744
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Bogdan_DC » Fri, 18 May 2018, 08:05

Nobody is defend FRR ineptitude here and their lack of internet skills.

The question is if WR have a clear procedure or unions need to inform from various internet sources (they laugh about Wiki but they also ask FRR for better inform themselves).Seriously?!

Posts: 2037
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby amz » Fri, 18 May 2018, 08:06

Bogdan_DC wrote:Nobody is defend FRR ineptitude here and their lack of internet skills.

The question is if WR have a clear procedure or unions need to inform from various internet sources (they laugh about Wiki but they also ask FRR for better inform themselves).Seriously?!


actually it was a list of all websites we usually link here when looking for a player regardless the nation (espn, itsrugby etc.) not only wiki

User avatar
Posts: 1999
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby iul » Fri, 18 May 2018, 08:08

According to Bogdan DC Sione thought 7s and XVs are not connected regarding eligibility. What more do you want? The information about him being an international was available within Romanian rugby and even if they did ask the player he had no fucking clue what was going on.

Posts: 12
Joined: Fri, 14 Jul 2017, 07:49
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby radu florea » Fri, 18 May 2018, 08:12

amz wrote:Was a piece of news from 2014. I am looking on google about the player since the scandal broke out and I missed it until someone posted it on facebook. Baia Mare writes 2-3 news weekly, make a calculation how many news were on the website since 2014...

that's no excuse. The info was there. On internet and - for sure - at Baia Mare Club staff.
Can't see how an attorney can turn this round in favor of FRR...

iul wrote:According to Bogdan DC Sione thought 7s and XVs are not connected regarding eligibility. What more do you want? The information about him being an international was available within Romanian rugby and even if they did ask the player he had no fucking clue what was going on.

I agree. But also it points the fact that FRR didn't know 7s and XVs are connected. If they knew, they would've put the right question in this regard.

User avatar
Posts: 1999
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby iul » Fri, 18 May 2018, 08:19

radu florea wrote:
amz wrote:Was a piece of news from 2014. I am looking on google about the player since the scandal broke out and I missed it until someone posted it on facebook. Baia Mare writes 2-3 news weekly, make a calculation how many news were on the website since 2014...

that's no excuse. The info was there. On internet and - for sure - at Baia Mare Club staff.
Can't see how an attorney can turn this round in favor of FRR...

iul wrote:According to Bogdan DC Sione thought 7s and XVs are not connected regarding eligibility. What more do you want? The information about him being an international was available within Romanian rugby and even if they did ask the player he had no fucking clue what was going on.

I agree. But also it points the fact that FRR didn't know 7s and XVs are connected. If they knew, they would've put the right question in this regard.

I don't thinkg FRR didn't know 7s and XVs are connected. I think FRR asked Sione if he had played for Tonga and they (FRR) assumed he does know 7s and XVs are connected, which, as Bogdan DC said after talking to him, he clearly doesn't, so he just said he didn't.

Posts: 3
Joined: Mon, 26 Mar 2018, 10:15
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby mmoae » Fri, 18 May 2018, 08:27

radu florea wrote:
amz wrote:Was a piece of news from 2014. I am looking on google about the player since the scandal broke out and I missed it until someone posted it on facebook. Baia Mare writes 2-3 news weekly, make a calculation how many news were on the website since 2014...

that's no excuse. The info was there. On internet and - for sure - at Baia Mare Club staff.
Can't see how an attorney can turn this round in favor of FRR...

iul wrote:According to Bogdan DC Sione thought 7s and XVs are not connected regarding eligibility. What more do you want? The information about him being an international was available within Romanian rugby and even if they did ask the player he had no fucking clue what was going on.

I agree. But also it points the fact that FRR didn't know 7s and XVs are connected. If they knew, they would've put the right question in this regard.


I think that when the player and the federation was asked if he was eligible it obviously implied sevens as well. In the player's case this was more than obvious. The form itself requires him to tick a box confirming he hasn't been capped by the senior 7s side (I really think Sione acted in good faith and he just didn't understand the Regulations, but I don't see what more Federation could have done - the form is self-explanatory).

For the Tongan Federation - they confirmed that he was not captured by Tonga. Why would you reply to an email inquiring about eligibility saying he didn't play for our team unless the conclusion is that he is sligible to play for Romania. The judgement also points out that Tonga didn't explicitly just refer to the XV side in the reply.

I would find it very odd if someone could claim that because you were asked for "any criminal convictions" in general in a background check form for example, you might misunderstand that as referring to some convictions but not others. The question asked of the player and the Tongan federation was if he was eligible. The WR regulations are there. FRR is certainly to blame for not doing more background check and they are suffering for it right now but their decision to cap the player was based on a reasonable assumption that they performed all checks necessary in this case.

Posts: 170
Joined: Sat, 31 May 2014, 21:12
National Flag:
FranceFrance

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby vino_93 » Fri, 18 May 2018, 08:31

RugbyLiebe wrote:
Immenso wrote:
NZRU and ARU don't do it on cost grounds.


The A team of New Zealand are the Maoris, or what would you call them?


According to WR, they aren't. A team is Junior All Black.

And Australia has regularly other teams playing (as classic wallabies). If they don't have an official one, that must be for some other reason than money.

Plus you forget France which is back with French Barbarians.

Posts: 744
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Bogdan_DC » Fri, 18 May 2018, 08:43

I don't want to put the conversation over here for privacy issues but he argue that he is here from 2014 and that 7s is different from 15s. It is very clear that he don't know the regulation. He mislead FRR by mistake i supposed but no more suppositions...let's see the appeal. We have like 1% chances. At TAS i think we have a very good case but we don't have the balls to challenge WR so badly.
I'm very worried about Portugal game, who will play for us? Who will train us?I don't remember a worst moment for us .

Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 18 May 2018, 08:45

mmoae wrote:
I think that when the player and the federation was asked if he was eligible it obviously implied sevens as well. In the player's case this was more than obvious. The form itself requires him to tick a box confirming he hasn't been capped by the senior 7s side (I really think Sione acted in good faith and he just didn't understand the Regulations, but I don't see what more Federation could have done - the form is self-explanatory).

For the Tongan Federation - they confirmed that he was not captured by Tonga. Why would you reply to an email inquiring about eligibility saying he didn't play for our team unless the conclusion is that he is sligible to play for Romania. The judgement also points out that Tonga didn't explicitly just refer to the XV side in the reply.

I would find it very odd if someone could claim that because you were asked for "any criminal convictions" in general in a background check form for example, you might misunderstand that as referring to some convictions but not others. The question asked of the player and the Tongan federation was if he was eligible. The WR regulations are there. FRR is certainly to blame for not doing more background check and they are suffering for it right now but their decision to cap the player was based on a reasonable assumption that they performed all checks necessary in this case.


We all know how this papers are prepared and signed. Everybody who has ever signed some contract knows.
The federation most likely prepared it und asked Sione to sign it. It is indeed his fault that he didn't see the 7s. But I absolutely can't believe that nobody within in the Romanian Union never even thought about 7s or knew that he played 7s for Tonga. No way.
They knew it and they thought they might get away if the Tongan Union is incompetent enough to tell them he hasn't played for their national team. They also probably knew that Sione maybe isn't that much into paperwork (if we follow the impression of Bogdan about him). They also thought, nothing could go wrong from here. "World Rugby banning us, nah never".

Well they tried and it didn't work out for them. And it is a good and extremely important judgement, because it blocks all future plans to play dumb and try to profit from clearly wrong statements, by third parties who don't really care. I mean Tonga doesn't care if a player they would never choose again plays for Romania. There are also no penalties for them if they don't do some research.
I mean another verdict would open a door to corruption. I pay you 10.000 Euro and you write that he never played for TakaTuka-Land (I am not implementing this was the case between Tonga and Romania, just thinking through what another judgement could lead to)

Second possibility: the Romanian Union is even more incompetent than Tonga and everybody who tried to clear players is an idiot. Two things I don't believe in.

Even the Romanian fan club posted, after he had played XVs for Romania, that he played 7s for Tonga before: https://www.facebook.com/Club16ro/posts ... 30906599:0 (how unbelievable cruel is this sentence in the facebook post: Cu siguranta va contribui la calificarea la Cupa Mondiala din 2019. ="
He surely will contribute to the qualification to the RWC 2019")
Last edited by RugbyLiebe on Fri, 18 May 2018, 09:07, edited 4 times in total.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 18 May 2018, 08:48

vino_93 wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:
Immenso wrote:
NZRU and ARU don't do it on cost grounds.


The A team of New Zealand are the Maoris, or what would you call them?


According to WR, they aren't. A team is Junior All Black.

And Australia has regularly other teams playing (as classic wallabies). If they don't have an official one, that must be for some other reason than money.

Plus you forget France which is back with French Barbarians.


Sorry I basically asked the same question strobro already asked. What I meant was that on cost grounds the NZ Union already finances another selection side, with a lot in common with another A side.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 728
Joined: Tue, 27 May 2014, 20:40
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Thomas » Fri, 18 May 2018, 09:30

Looking at the website and official releases the setups are as follows:

NZ have the following teams in linear line of selection we have

ALLBLACKS
Junior ALL BLACKS
NZ U20

OTHER TEAMS:
MAORI All Blacks ( it doesn't mean you are tied to your country) it means you are a Maori and eligible to play for them.
New Zealand Schools


Australia only have 2 teams:

Wallabies
Australian u20's

Other Teams
Australian Schools
Classic Wallabies

England

England Senior team
England Saxons is the current name of England's men's second national rugby union team
England U20's
England U18's

Wales

Wales Senior Team
Wales U20's
Wales U18's


I am not including 7's in this thread. but as you can see it is not straight forward... in between all that you have other age groups which are used for one purpose or another, I can just imagine the confusion of Tier 2/3 countries if Tier1 have different designations.

Posts: 3789
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby thatrugbyguy » Fri, 18 May 2018, 09:55

Australia sometimes has Australia A or the Australian Barbarians. But yes, it's a mess of a situation which makes determining what the second XV team is difficult and prone to confusion, which is why WR need to consider the test team to be the only capture team.

Posts: 29
Joined: Thu, 19 Oct 2017, 21:52
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Immenso » Fri, 18 May 2018, 11:14

RugbyLiebe wrote:
vino_93 wrote:
RugbyLiebe wrote:
Immenso wrote:
NZRU and ARU don't do it on cost grounds.


The A team of New Zealand are the Maoris, or what would you call them?


According to WR, they aren't. A team is Junior All Black.

And Australia has regularly other teams playing (as classic wallabies). If they don't have an official one, that must be for some other reason than money.

Plus you forget France which is back with French Barbarians.


Sorry I basically asked the same question strobro already asked. What I meant was that on cost grounds the NZ Union already finances another selection side, with a lot in common with another A side.


Yes, the Maori are a financially viable team. They have over a 100 years of history, a bit of 'romance' about them and authenticity. Maori New Zealander rugby players genuinely want to play for them.

They attract a large enough paying audience. Generally they tour rather than play at home these days.

The JABs played to tiny crowds in the years they were active in the Pacific Nations Cup, they were a financial drain.

The NZRU couldn't fund both, and for historical and cultural reasons they need (or would prefer) to keep the MABs.

Posts: 929
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 18 May 2018, 14:45

iul wrote:According to Bogdan DC Sione thought 7s and XVs are not connected regarding eligibility. What more do you want? The information about him being an international was available within Romanian rugby and even if they did ask the player he had no fucking clue what was going on.

So what? That FRR then went with it shows that they got what's coming to them.

Posts: 1443
Joined: Tue, 10 Jun 2014, 18:27
National Flag:
GeorgiaGeorgia

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby GeoRugby » Fri, 18 May 2018, 15:25

I don't want to put the conversation over here for privacy issues but he argue that he is here from 2014 and that 7s is different from 15s. It is very clear that he don't know the regulation. He mislead FRR by mistake


It is quiet possible that he had no clue that having played for 7s Tonga made him ineligible for Romania, and if he signed the necessary paperwork and there was a question of him and Tonga 7s in that paperwork, than somebody at FRR should have raised a red flag right there.

Posts: 170
Joined: Sat, 31 May 2014, 21:12
National Flag:
FranceFrance

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby vino_93 » Fri, 18 May 2018, 15:43

A few years ago France wanted to play with David Smith. But as he played 7's with NZ, he couldn't. Job was done, as FFR manage to check his eligibility - whereas they initially think he was eligible, as they had a doc saying ok.

Similar cases, but one did a pro job, other no...

User avatar
Posts: 1999
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby iul » Fri, 18 May 2018, 15:44

TheStroBro wrote:
iul wrote:According to Bogdan DC Sione thought 7s and XVs are not connected regarding eligibility. What more do you want? The information about him being an international was available within Romanian rugby and even if they did ask the player he had no fucking clue what was going on.

So what? That FRR then went with it shows that they got what's coming to them.

yes, that was my point

Posts: 744
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Bogdan_DC » Fri, 18 May 2018, 15:50

GeoRugby wrote:
I don't want to put the conversation over here for privacy issues but he argue that he is here from 2014 and that 7s is different from 15s. It is very clear that he don't know the regulation. He mislead FRR by mistake


It is quiet possible that he had no clue that having played for 7s Tonga made him ineligible for Romania, and if he signed the necessary paperwork and there was a question of him and Tonga 7s in that paperwork, than somebody at FRR should have raised a red flag right there.

The eligibility paper is very clear and all the nationals teams XV, 7s and NSRT are remembered twice for the player and twice for the union in that act. The consequences are remembered twice also.

Posts: 929
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 18 May 2018, 15:51

RugbyLiebe wrote:Sorry I basically asked the same question strobro already asked. What I meant was that on cost grounds the NZ Union already finances another selection side, with a lot in common with another A side.

Although they are not officially designated NZ 'A', the Maori fulfill that role with development and match time.
Last edited by TheStroBro on Fri, 18 May 2018, 16:47, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 744
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby Bogdan_DC » Fri, 18 May 2018, 15:55

vino_93 wrote:A few years ago France wanted to play with David Smith. But as he played 7's with NZ, he couldn't. Job was done, as FFR manage to check his eligibility - whereas they initially think he was eligible, as they had a doc saying ok.

Similar cases, but one did a pro job, other no...


The difference was made by the player who told FFR that he played for NZ 7evens :).

"In a statement on its website, the FFR said it had a document dating from August 2014 which indicated the 29-year-old Smith “appeared eligible” for France.

“On his arrival, David revealed to us he played in 2008 at Edinburgh in the international Sevens tournament for New Zealand,” the FFR said. “Because of this fact, David Smith isn’t eligible for selection for the France XV according to international rules and will be released from the squad on Monday morning.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... ineligible

Posts: 929
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 18 May 2018, 16:11

iul wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:
iul wrote:According to Bogdan DC Sione thought 7s and XVs are not connected regarding eligibility. What more do you want? The information about him being an international was available within Romanian rugby and even if they did ask the player he had no fucking clue what was going on.

So what? That FRR then went with it shows that they got what's coming to them.

yes, that was my point

Ah, cheers. We need a beer emoji.

Posts: 8
Joined: Fri, 11 May 2018, 15:46
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: New Belgium/Spain/Romania/eligibility thread UPDATE

Postby efti » Sat, 19 May 2018, 19:12

Cheers. Tried to post you some beer emoji but I get an SQL error

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Coloradoan, Google [Bot], grande, RugbyPUBtbilisi and 9 guests