Rule one - thou shalt not

By WYNNE GRAY at the World Cup

On a day off from official training, a group of All Blacks saunter across the road from their Melbourne hotel to chuck a ball around in the local park.

After a day of sightseeing, they just want to loosen their limbs. As long as they dodge the trams in St Kilda Rd, the expedition does not look too hazardous.

But this innocent frolic could breach the array of regulations which cover every World Cup because it could be argued that the players were training at a non-accredited venue.

That would be a pedantic argument and one, if raised, likely to be resolved with some common-sense.

But the potential for infringements is wide, and the cost is high - fines range from £5000 ($13,890) to £100,000 ($278,000).

Expulsion from the tournament is the ultimate penalty for the most serious offence.

Since the middle of the year, New Zealand Rugby Union lawyer Steve Cottrell and his colleagues have studied the 199-page International Rugby Board manual and participation agreement for the tournament.

It is the detailed bible for the event, a document that covers all the processes, disciplinary, doping and commercial rules.



It is all about compliance, the byword for all 20 nations involved in this event - especially for the NZRFU after its failed bid to co-host the cup.

Cottrell is in Melbourne, with a number of other NZRFU employees, for the entire tournament.

He is involved in the normal work he would be doing back in Wellington, but is handy to give quick advice on cup issues.

The former midfield back for Otago, Wellington, Cambridge University and Richmond tucked away his boots three years ago and took his overseas work experience, law and commerce degrees home.

He joined the NZRFU in May 2000, and is now in the middle of one of his larger projects.

"There are complex and detailed rules, and it is the obligation of the participating union to not only comply but ensure compliance by team-members, staff and management," he said.

A simple example is the requirement for the All Blacks to wear the correct gear at team hotels and accredited venues.

A newspaper photo of a player drinking a Steinlager in front of a World Cup logo involving Heineken would prompt a "please explain" notice.

One inquiry was raised about a photo in a Sydney newspaper of the All Blacks wearing Steinlager gear at training.

The answer was, the picture was taken before the team left New Zealand.

"There was no complaint, but a query was raised and it was answered and addressed," Cottrell said.

In the background, NZRFU chief executive Chris Moller and project manager Therese Walsh are liaising with World Cup, IRB, Australian Rugby Union and All Black staff.

"It would be wrong to paint a picture of everyone walking around on tippy-toes," Cottrell said, "but there is a healthy respect for the rules and the sanctions which can be imposed.

"We want to be well on the right side of the line."

Ambush marketing and intellectual property protection were areas where cup officials and the NZRFU were vigilant.

It was a constant battle as companies tried to associate themselves with the cup or the All Blacks through promotions or marketing campaigns.

Cup officials have a law firm at the tournament, the IRB has brand-protection managers patrolling cities, venues, hotels and shops, and there was a concerted approach from the NZRFU and cup organisers to catch ambush marketers.

"It is all about protecting our property but also the investment our sponsors have made," Cottrell said.

Commercial operations were the main target - a Dunedin scarfie making a few T-shirts would probably not feel the force of the NZRFU.

"But at the same time if you let all the little breaches go, you come to a big breach who cites all the others, so we have to be pretty strict at home and at the World Cup," said Cottrell.

Legal fights were not the best way to spend New Zealand rugby money, "but unless you protect your revenue-generating assets, the other [illegal] operations will grow".

Full World Cup coverage