Servings of humble pie unlikely to satisfy IRB

By CHRIS LAIDLAW

It's a done deal. New Zealand's hopes of being a co-host of the World Cup will be extinguished next week when the IRB axe finally falls.

Everything now points to a "yes" vote by the IRB ruling council to the Australian proposition that it host the whole tournament.

It seems that regardless of what the New Zealanders might come up with at the meeting, it is too late to stop the tide flowing Australia's way.

The IRB can do little else. It has already decided that the Australian plan is acceptable and it is now just a matter of approving that and waiting for the dust to settle.

That will take some time because this promises to be a major humiliation for New Zealand rugby, and one that will continue to rankle.

The IRB is also well aware of the damage a continuing row between New Zealand and Australia could do to the international credibility of the game and there is some anxiety about that.

At the same time there is a determination, particularly among the home unions, that to turn back now would be a fatal sign of weakness that they would rather not show.

The European unions, France excluded, will unquestionably have their way and they will be backed by others who know full well that with New Zealand as a co-host on the kind of terms that the NZRU is seeking, the result would be a much reduced dividend for the IRB from the tournament.

Bernard Lappasset, the head of the French federation, has been much more supportive of New Zealand.

He is said to be unhappy at the way this issue has been allowed to escalate without some serious head-banging. One has the impression that if Lappasset, clearly the ablest operator in European rugby, were running the IRB, this problem would never have arisen. But then, the home unions could never contemplate a Frenchman getting control of this quintessentially Anglo-Saxon game.

Although there is some sympathy at IRB headquarters for the wider reputation of New Zealand rugby, there is virtually none for the management of the NZRFU.

There is no question in the minds of those who have had to negotiate on behalf of the global body that the NZRFU has only itself to blame for the shambles that has been created.

Great offence has been taken at what IRB officials regard as deliberate and none-too-subtle attempts by the New Zealanders involved to personalise the conflict.

This playing of the man rather than the ball has destroyed what little sympathy existed for the New Zealand case, and we have not heard the last of this.

It has been said that even if Murray McCaw and David Rutherford were to turn up this weekend in Dublin prepared to eat the very humblest of pie, it would make no difference. New Zealand, they have decided, has blown it, and blown it big time.

Officials in Dublin are adamant that the IRB's requirements, notably for clean stadiums, have been crystal clear from the beginning and they are prepared to show any doubters a paper trail confirming this.

The organisers consistently maintain that they urged the NZRFU time and again to clarify its position on the stadiums issue, without success. What they are not willing to reveal is the substance of the variety of informal contacts between key personalities at both ends, and it is here where the picture becomes much less distinct.

Although it is not admitted by either side, there has obviously been a series of nods and winks involving key personalities that have complicated the formal requirements.

These have led to a range of misunderstandings, particularly on the part of the NZRFU, the result of which has been a failure to live up to the letter of the agreement to have New Zealand act as co-host.

There is a feeling that New Zealand was very slow out of the blocks compared to Australia in securing clean stadiums, and has resorted to questionable tactics ever since in order to extricate itself.

How much truth is there in that?

Clearly there is some, and until the NZRFU gives an adequate explanation of how and why it took so long to come to terms with the letter rather than the spirit of the IRB contractual requirements, it will stand condemned by the rest of the rugby world as the union that shot itself in the foot as it prepared to take a winning kick for goal.