REC 2020 preview

A short preview looking at the state of play ahead the REC in 2020.

The dominant force of the tournament Georgia have seen coach Milton Haig depart after 8 years in charge, but their squad does not have a new era feel to it. Still yet to appoint a new head coach, they are being led on a caretaker basis by the former defence coach under Haig, Levan Maisashvili.

Veterans like Kacharava are continuing post-RWC

Only in charge for five matches, he has deemed this too little time to consider any longer term plans, and opted to keep almost all the veterans who you may have expected to retire after the RWC. So for the Lelos this tournament's main objective will be simply to maintain their dominance on the competition and possibly give players like 35 year old Davit Kacharava or Shalva Sutiashvili fitting farewells in front of home fans.

---

Likely the trickiest obstacle for a third consecutive Grand Slam is an away trip to Spain, where on their last visit in 2017 Georgia trailed at half time, and for the past two years looked unconvincing in having to rely on scrummaging dominance to secure ugly home wins against opponents not at full strength.

In 2019 Spain found a habit of being on the right side of some tight results winning four REC matches for the first time and going on an unbeaten tour of Tier 2 South America. Now they approach tougher challenges travelling to Russia and Romania, and a home game vs Georgia fully believing they can win.

Spain won 8 out of 9 tests in 2019

Injury and unavailability is the norm with Spanish selection and they are not full strength without Charly Malie, Marco Pinto, Asier Usarraga, Mickael de Marco, Alvar Gimeno, Facundo Munilla (although they do have some interesting new additions on residency or heritage or from their U20s). Another successful REC campaign in spite of that would be a great achievement for Santiago Santos' team.

---

Looking to stop Spain's winning run are Russia, who were the oldest squad at the recent RWC, but like Georgia most of their veteran players have not retired and been retained by Lyn Jones.

The Bears have been consistently mid-table finishing either 3rd or 4th every single year since 2010. This year playing both Spain and Romania at home, they have as good an opportunity as ever to change that, although it must be said they are a team that was old before and not getting much younger.

Kaliningrad is to host their first REC match

One of the most interesting aspects of Russia's REC campaign this year will be them playing their first match in Kaliningrad against Portugal. The city superbly hosted last year's Rugby Europe U18 Championship and if successful could be a superior winter base for them with far better support than one man and a dog in Sochi (which is now hosting a game at the 47,659 Fisht Olympic Stadium).

---

Under new leadership this year are Romania with Andy Robinson. He has a mixed head coaching record and comes into this job after three years out of the game following dismal failure at Bristol. However he has a reputation as a good technical coach (but poor selector or recruiter), and one of the best successes of his career was repairing a bare bones Edinburgh squad in 2007 to 2009. If committed it is possible he could be a good fit for this Romania job where "upskilling" players is more the challenge than selection.

Several of the 1986 generation is still going (and Andrei Radoi comes out of international retirement), but the Oaks seem to have abandoned betting on residency players, and selected more young players than they have for some time (although now they are coming out of Romania's worst ever U20s).

New Romania coach Andy Robinson

For years the great rival for the REC with Georgia, their hopes of winning the Antim Cup away in their opening game in Tbilisi have never been slimmer, instead the focus for Romania this year is on redeveloping a squad and finding new players ready to play key roles in their RWC qualifying campaign starting next year.

---

Below the top four are Belgium who come into this tournament on poor form. Their away form has been a total joke for a while, but even at home they have failed to match some of their past success. Losing badly at home to Romania last year, and more recently to a very average Hong Kong team.

Their strategy will as last year be to focus mainly on just one game against their most likely relegation rival Portugal. This will be first up, and unfortunately for Belgium also away from home, so to stay up they will have to do something they've never done before and win an REC game outside Brussels.

---

Rejoining the REC for the first time in four years are the 2003 Grand Slam winners Portugal who after winning the RET with ease finally beat Germany in the playoff.

Os Lobos have played few higher ranked opponents over the past couple of years so this will be an interesting challenge for a team that almost resembles a University side in its youth (although has now added experienced Top 14 players Samuel Marques and Geoffrey Moise after long absences).

Beating Belgium to avoid bottom place is the priority, and although somewhat unlikely to finish in the top half, they do have some talent and carry an unknown quantity element that could surprise and give a hard test to at least one of the more experienced and higher ranked sides.

---

Below the REC the RET also continues but the winner at this point seems very likely to be the Netherlands having already resoundingly beaten a very weak Germany team 37-7. The Dutch, barring a giant choke, will face probably the loser of Portugal vs Belgium in a summer playoff where they could return to the REC for the first time since they were relegated way back in 2002.

---

Rugby Europe Championship schedule 2020:

Is there a worthwhile future for the REC clubs in the Challenge Cup?

Prior to 2014 the Challenge Cup featured six clubs outside the three main European leagues. This was a point of frustration for many as there was a feeling they were selected poorly. They included four Italian clubs along with two others, the Bucharest Wolves, along with often a mid table Spanish side as the top side didn't have the money or desire to compete, or for one season a Portuguese selection.

For selection sides like Bucharest Wolves assembling with little preparation for two week blocks to take on much more cohesive club sides was not ideal. The Spanish side wasn't even the best in Spain. Whilst Georgian and Russian representation was being omitted despite usually beating Iberian opponents internationally and the latter clearly having some stronger clubs than those that were competing.

Meanwhile the Italian clubs were remarkably poor. Calvisano were the Italian league champions in 2013/14, yet still lost home and away to the Bucharest Wolves. Even Bizkaia Gernika in 2012/13, despite qualifying on the back of a sixth place domestic league finish still beat Rovigo home and away.

Enisey-STM players celebrate their
win 19-12 over Worcester in 2016

The change in 2014 which introduced the Continental Shield and opened up the Challenge Cup to a meritocratic qualifying basis was much welcomed. However it hasn't quite turned out as has hoped.

Initially the Russian clubs which were full of internationals and strengthened by experienced players from across Eastern Europe backed up what many had thought. In their first European campaign in 2015/16 Enisey-STM took two scalps from major leagues in Brive (10-7) and Newcastle (24-7). Away trips were trickier, their worst loss was 55-7 in Newcastle, but in light of this season you would take that as a worst result.

The following season they also beat Worcester (19-12) and the Dragons (38-18), whilst only had one loss over 40 pts in their last match away to Worcester (57-14). Their average scoreline over the first two seasons was 14-32. They were winning more often than they conceding over 50+ points.

This was in the context of being new and inexperienced in the competition and with the disadvantage of playing matches in what is their off season and some of the "home" matches being played miles away in Sochi. It was hoped this could be a platform to potentially continue to achieve more credibility and experience on the European stage over the following years.

That has not happened though and their fortunes in the 2018/19 season took a dramatic nosedive. Instead of conceding 50+ pts just once a season, they conceded over that in every match bar one, with even Zebre thrashing them. Whilst they took some scalps in the matches hosted in Russia initially, this season they lost 82-21 to La Rochelle and 65-9 to Bristol. Finally their campaign finished atrociously conceding 17 tries in a 107-19 slaughter in Bristol after an early red card.

Timisoara beat Italian clubs with ease
to qualify for the Challenge Cup in 2016
but their time actually in the competition
has ended up being utterly forgettable

Meanwhile Timisoara who also at the time had several experienced internationals looked in the qualifying competition like they could possibly perform similarly to Enisey-STM. They were beating Italian clubs in the Continental Shield by clearer margins than the Bucharest Wolves did. Rovigo and Calvisano were the top two teams in the Italian league in 2015/16 and the Romanians beat the former 45-13, and the latter twice home and away over two legs 64-40.

Unfortunately once they reached the Challenge Cup in 2016/17 Timisoara did not at all fare well. Not only were results bad, but they ended up with a sizeable fine for a cancelled match due to snow. There has only been bad news for the club ever since then, with talk of unpaid players and low morale, their main backer reducing investment, and players have been leaving.

The snowy pitch that cost Timisoara
yet another €30,000 fine from EPCR

They couldn't qualify for the 2018/19 Challenge Cup on merit getting knocked out by Heidelberger RK, but got through after the Germans were kicked out for ownership conflicts. It was widely expected that they would struggle badly, but in getting hit by yet another fine for a snowy pitch, and then taking 59-3 and 111-3 humiliating hammerings against the Dragons and Bristol it still managed to be a total horror campaign even despite the incredibly low expectations.

The Italians incidentally in the Continental Shield have also done much to alter the view of how having four of them in the old format was certainly not selecting the best possible teams. In the 2016/17 tournament Enisey-STM beat Mogliano 97-7 over two legs, whilst Krasny Yar beat Mogliano 48-24, and Rovigo 42-11. Even German champions Heidelberger RK could beat the Italians and in the 2017/18 season scored wins over the both the top two clubs (Petrarca Padova and Calvisano).

Whilst the Continental Shield also initially seemed a good concept, it has been underwhelming. If you look at the EPCR site you could be forgiven for not realising it existed given the little attention it gets. It has been cut down in size with clubs from Spain, Portugal and Germany all withdrawing due to (likely) financial reasons and possible lack of desire to really compete at Challenge Cup level.

This year there were only two competitors outside of Italy in the Continental Shield, and one of those (a selection side from Belgium the "Belgian Barbarians XV") was hardly prepared at all and was a bit of joke getting annihilated 68-12 and 89-7 home and away to Rovigo.

The reported crowd at Enisey-STM
vs Bristol at Sochi was a mere 100

These recent results call into question whether there is worthwhile future for the Continental Shield and teams outside the main three European leagues competing in the Challenge Cup right now.

If there was more money to be made either from TV, sponsorship, and a growing fanbase from competing then this would be a non-question. However there does not appear to be much evidence this is the case given the amount of teams who have withdrawn from the Continental Shield. Enisey-STM playing in Sochi drew an attendance reported as small as 100 and was not televised. The probability that Challenge Cup participation right now is a loss maker for these clubs is pretty high.

Timisoara's 111-3 annihilation against
Northampton may be the last we see of
them competing in the Challenge Cup

For now it is hard to see any real point from the Romanian perspective at least to continue putting resources towards a series of thumpings and fines for snowy pitches. This is particularly relevant for a club like Timisoara who have reportedly been struggling to pay players and seem in little position to either produce or recruit the amount of talent to compete.

Some have suggested a return to the selection squads like Bucharest Wolves. They were not great (average scoreline in their 2014/15 campaign was 44-13), but at least did not suffer to the degree Timisoara have and get fines for snowy pitches. But again given the state they are in frankly Challenge Cup should not be the priority for Romanian rugby right now. There is also a reasonably strong chance such a side would be much worse in 2020 than they may have been 5 years ago.

As for the Russian clubs their downfall has been slightly more puzzling given a lot of their team getting thumped this season are the same players who were a lot more competitive only a couple years back. However one possibility is fact they are mostly the same team could be part of the problem.

They are not lacking experience, but the core of their squad looks very old and could just be over the hill now at this level. They went into each match this season with a starting XV with an average age of 30 or 31. Half of the XV against Zebre is aged over 32 with a handful veterans over 35.

Enisey-STM have an ageing squad with
an average of 31 that has barely changed
from their debut Challenge Cup season

At that age a couple years difference can be noticeable and several of those players are probably nearing retirement. This is a side 3 or 4 years older than the average professional team, the rotational Bristol team that pasted them had an average age over 5 years younger.

This brings us onto a similar theme. It has escaped so much attention as Romania as it has not to the same degree or been as badly exposed, but Russia too over the past few years have also had a relatively poor time of late at junior level and been struggling to find the quantity of new young talent from those sides to come through and been relying on a core of older players.

Hence why at national team level they were giving a debut to a 34 year old scrum half (who was the 17th member of their U21 side of 2004 of which remarkably 8 players were still active in 2018). Also possibly hence why we see Enisey-STM enter the Challenge Cup this year with what is an ageing squad that has still barely changed since they first entered the competition back in 2015.

Again to reiterate the situation for Russia is not as dismal as it is for Romania but the general theme remains the same. They have neither been able to produce the level of talent to feed into their domestic teams, nor have they been able to recruit it from overseas either.

So what about the teams that have been considerably more successful in producing talent?

Georgia are notably the clear standouts in this regard, but it's also clear their domestic setup is not producing teams to the level to be competitive at the Challenge Cup. The Didi 10 champions from last season Lokomotivi Tbilsi have recently been playing in the Continental Shield against Italian opposition. Three of four matches those were close contests. If they were going to be competitive at the higher level that opposition would pose no problems.

Obviously the Georgian the domestic level is likely to be weakened with a considerable number of their players abroad, but that doesn't tell the whole story though due to the large percentage of those being props. There still actually remains some decent young talent which is feeding into the Didi 10. We saw this with the U20s and in the upset from the young fully Georgian based Georgia XV team vs Argentina XV in the summer (which didn't even include many domestic based international squad members).

Unlike some other leagues, there has not
been a really dominant team in Georgia
with the top talent spread across clubs and
5 different regular season winners in 5 years

But there has not been a really strong club side in Georgia owing to how dispersed across the Didi 10 that talent is. There are no one or two teams who stockpile the best talent and dominate unlike some other leagues. In November there were 8 domestic based players in the squad across 6 of the teams. Over the past five seasons five different teams have topped the regular season table.

That is in complete contrast to Romania and Russia in recent times. The SuperLiga final has been Timisoara vs Baia Mara in five of the past six seasons. In Russia it has been Enisey-STM vs Krasny Yar for eight consecutive seasons. Also been similar in Japan, up until this year Panasonic and Suntory shared all the past 8 Top League titles between them. That has made their league much more boring, but also meant a side like Enisey (previously at least), or Panasonic and Suntory (on paper clearly the strongest clubs from a Tier 2 nation) can be able to compete with low end clubs in elite leagues.

Georgia XV showed there is some talent
in the Didi 10 with their upset win over
Argentina XV in the Tbilisi Cup last year

Also of course need to remember the Georgians have only been having top tier level youth teams for four years. It will take time for that to feed into the depth of the league which has virtually zero overseas recruitment to boost it. Although clearly the fact they continue to produce a good level of talent, puts them in a better position to potentially field a reasonable side in the competition in future if not yet.

The other REC teams to consider are the Iberians, who both remain largely amateur, and in some cases lack ambition, and have been reluctant to compete in Continental Shield with the costs involved.

A bit of talk has happened in Spain about forming a more professional league. However for now mentions of professionalism is just talk, and they are still miles away from being talked about as possible competitors at Challenge Cup level and the impression you get is don't even want to be either.

So unfortunately being realistic it is hard to see really anybody representative from the REC nations be competitive in the Challenge Cup in the immediate term. The window where the Russian clubs could pick up wins appears to have passed, the Romanians too will unlikely get any better and those have been countries where the strongest REC clubs have come from in recent years. The Georgians maybe have potential upside, but not yet, especially with no club hording all the top players.

Hopefully there will still be a future for REC clubs to be more competitive in the Challenge Cup at some point. It's just right now that seems even more of a long term goal. In the meantime it may be of better use to focus more resources elsewhere with a possible view of coming back when in a stronger position. This season with Timisoara getting fined for snow and embarrassed by Northampton, or Enisey-STM in their off season travelling over 5,000km to Sochi to get thrashed by Bristol in front of 100 people. It simply seems now there is little value in the Challenge Cup for these clubs in just repeating that.

Thoughts on the RWC disqualification of Romania, Spain, & Belgium

Over two months on from the controversial end to the 2018 REC, on Tuesday finally World Rugby confirmed the outcome of their investigation into ineligible players. After the earlier precedent set by Tahiti's disqualification it was one that many had expected as the most likely.

The investigation involved all REC teams involved in RWC qualifying. Although the mostly retaliatory accusation against Russia over former Kazakh international Anton Rudoy was never going to be an issue. He has been in Russia a long time and clearly fulfilled all the necessary criteria to change his allegiance via the Olympic 7s qualifying loophole.

Germany also came under question. It is thought the player involved was former Wales U20 international Jamie Murphy. Whilst the U20s were Wales' second designated team when Murphy played for them in 2009, unlike the case in involving Mathieu Bélie and Bastien Fuster however, in that particular year France's second designated team was "France A", so there were no possible opponents for his eligibility to get locked.

Victor Paquet

The others could not escape though having all clearly fielded ineligible players. Romania with former Tongan 7s player Sione Faka'osilea. Spain with former France U20s Bélie and Fuster. And Belgium with five unnamed players (although at least one is thought to be hooker Victor Paquet) with heritage just from great-grandparents one generation out from what is allowed.

There is a lot of sympathy to be had for the players and fans from Romania and Spain. They have done nothing wrong and seen their goal of reaching the World Cup disappear away from the pitch and all the effort, sacrifice, and work gone into it go to waste. As two teams with squads on the older side for many of their players this was also their last chance to play on the sport's biggest stage.

Unfortunately in both cases the administrators (contrary to the claims made to the investigation) have simply fallen foul of human error and messed up.

Sione Faka'osilea

The Romanians claimed to have "explained" Regulation 8 to Faka'osilea. The player would surely remembered he played 7s for Tonga so if that were really the case they must have either given a rather shoddy explanation or the player totally misunderstood it.

Romania also claimed to have checked with the Tongan Rugby Union Chairman, and searched ESPN and Wikipedia to find out if Faka'osilea had played for Tonga. This part also seems a bit odd.

Firstly if they needed to check if Faka'osilea had played 7s for Tonga then surely wouldn't the first thing to do be to ask the player himself if he had done so? That would be have provided a better answer than going to two notoriously incomplete and unreliable sources or a Union that is one of the worst in terms of providing information and unable even to run their own website or active social media feed.

Secondly Faka'osilea made his international debut on March 4 last year and his Wikipedia page was only created on March 20. Also ESPN don't have profiles of Romanian SuperLiga players so are unlikely to have had a page on him prior to March either. Thirdly if the FRR had searched Google a bit better they could have found his page on "it's rugby", the article in 2014 from Baia Mare announcing his signing, or an article from 2015 on the blog "Est XV" all of which also noted he was a Tonga 7s international.

In all likelihood it is doubtful Romania actually "explained" Regulation 8 to Faka'osilea at all or went to any lengths to check if he had played 7s for Tonga. All they probably made sure to check was if he had played for Tonga or Tonga A and simply forgot about 7s. Indeed it is not all that surprising they might have forgotten about 7s as the abbreviated form of a game is a complete non entity in Romania.

The report also shows Spain attempted to scramble their way out of disqualification claiming France shouldn't have been able to change their second designated team to France U21 in 2007 to France U20 in 2008 (when World Rugby changed the age of their junior competition) and that the chosen team should have stood for four years.

Mathieu Bélie

This was actually quite a clever attempt by the FER to save themselves but this was ultimately rejected by the report. WR had clearly allowed France to change to U20 years ago when U21 got pushed aside. If Spain had indeed studied the rules closely to attempt to find a loophole to field Bélie and Fuster they would have surely checked with World Rugby first.

In reality this was just them desperately looking for anything to try and cover for their oversight. It is not the first they have made eligibility oversights in recent times either. Former France 7s player Fabien Grammatico played for them back in 2015. David Mélé also previously of France 7s very nearly played for them this year as well but for an injury.

World Rugby were obviously correct to judge these were ineligible players. It is hard to see how the appeals that are being launched will have much success in getting more lenient sanctions either.

This is a big shame for both teams, especially Romania who would have certainly been able to qualify without Faka'osilea anyway. Their demise is particularly sad as RWC 2019 was likely to be the last tournament for many of their longest serving players which they have now missed out on through such a needless and unnecessary blunder. Also for the tournament itself it would have been far better to have had the strongest most competitive team possible there.

Whilst Spain would not have got so close to qualifying without their ineligible player Bélie, who was crucial for them at fly half and probably one of their best of all time, they will also probably be genuinely annoyed at how World Rugby has for so long allowed the designated second team to be used so inconsistently in the first place, and at France for designating their U20s.

Next year Los Leones will watch from home a World Cup that will feature dozens of former U20 internationals such as the likes of Nemani Nadolo, Amanaki Mafi, CJ Stander, Chris Vui, Henry Speight, Ross Moriarty, or Brad Shields who now all represent different countries to the ones they did at junior level. In fact over half the teams in the tournament are likely to field such players including even possibly France themselves if they recall Scott Spedding or Noa Nakaitaci.

Spain were just unlucky that the one particular nation which provides them with all their heritage players happened to be one of the few that nominated U20s as their second team.

Telusa Veainu is one of eight players
in the Tonga squad who would have
been ineligible had New Zealand
designated U20s as a second team

By the way you can be very sure Tonga are incredibly thankful New Zealand never did likewise even though their "Junior All Blacks" team has been inactive even longer than "France A" has been. If New Zealand had nominated their U20s instead then the Ikale Tahi would have lost eight members of their current squad including key players such as Ben Tameifuna and Telusa Veainu.

However whilst many would agree that being able to essentially nominate U20s as your 'A' team to lock eligibility has always been daft and World Rugby were right to belatedly stop that as of this year. The rules nevertheless were still in place and Spain benefited from not following them.

Russia are unable to call upon
Khatchik Vartanov after his
appearances for France U20

Russia also have heritage players from France tied by U20s as well such as Oyonnax prop Khatchik Vartanov. You would imagine they would have been very keen to select him if he was available especially as he plays in a position where they possess little depth. But the Russians, already stung by their own ineligibility disqualification 15 years ago, followed the rules. Whereas Spain didn't in selecting Bélie, who was one of the most influential players in the tournament and created the match winning try in Krasnodar that all but ended the Bears hopes of reaching the World Cup (or at least had done until this situation arose).

Had there been a more lenient sanction on Spain that didn't involve points deduction it would have been quite unfair on Russia to have missed out thanks to knowing the rules properly. Also especially considering the precedent set in 2003, where the shoe was on the other foot and Russia were disqualified from the RWC for ineligible players and Spain progressed to the next stage of qualifying.

Video: Spain's ineligible player Bélie created the try that all but ended

Russia's chances of reaching the World Cup on the pitch.

'A' teams have gradually become
very inactive over this decade

Moving forwards two things should happen as a result of this. Firstly the second designated team concept adds needless confusion and ideally should be scrapped altogether. Nowadays most 'A' teams are highly inactive anyway. Only selection for full national sides not development sides should lock eligibility.

Secondly World Rugby should create an official statistical database of international rugby. Currently most rely upon ESPN Scrum for the records of past matches and players. However their data is riddled with small errors for teams outside Tier 1 and mostly incomplete outside those ranked in the top 20.

Whilst there are hardly any sites to search for historical data on 7s matches and players at all (it is impossible to find out for example the precise number of matches and tries Rupeni Caucaunibuca scored for Fiji at 7s). If WR were to create an official statistical database it would not only help in cases like this for Unions to check a player's eligibility easily and efficiently, but it would also be good for fans looking for accurate information on the records of players outside Tier 1.

This situation has been a regrettable one and it is good to at last have the decision out of the way. Although the fall out from this will still probably keep rumbling on for the next year or so. There are still appeals from Spain and Romania to be heard. Next year's REC may feature a number of match ups that involve a lot more bitterness between the teams than usual. And Russia's appearance at the RWC next year will carry an asterisk alongside it as a fluke that was not earned on the pitch especially if they fail to make the best of it. Hopefully none of this will ever be allowed to happen again.

Referee was not to blame for Spain's failure in Belgium

Rarely has a Rugby Europe Championship match generated as much discussion as the recent encounter between Belgium and Spain. Unfortunately of course not for positive reasons and what was a stupid situation to begin with and received just as much ill informed comments afterwards. So it is worthwhile going over a few things here.

First of all something everybody agrees on. The decision from Rugby Europe not to alter the referee was an incredibly stupid one. The potential for this controversy to arise could have been quickly averted had Rugby Europe acted similarly to the 6 Nations when attention was brought to the fact Marius van der Westhuizen had spent time in England training sessions over the week.

The perception of a bias was so obviously in the minds of the Spanish right from the start. They had already complained before the match, and it only took about 5 minutes and the first couple of decisions to against them for them to lose their composure, start to get irritable and unable to accept the referee's calls as being made in good faith.

This was easily foreseeable and easily preventable. It would have been quite simple and made total sense to change the match officials lineup to one both teams were happy with. Basically everyone agrees on this points and Rugby Europe have come in for some deserved criticism.

However many of the other responses to this match have also been completely wrong.

First of all from some of the Spain players. There have been reports of verbal abuse towards Vlad Iordachesu over the course of the match (which is not hard to believe) and at the end of the match several players then became physically aggressive and disgracefully chased the referee off the pitch.

Those were ugly scenes rarely seen in rugby and completely unacceptable. A few of players involved (namely Pierre Barthéré, Guillaume Rouet, Lucas Guillaume) may face sanctions for this. Also to see the FER promote #JusticeForRugbyValues after that incident or Lucas Guillaume call the referee "a thug" is ironic considering their behaviour.

After the match many in Spain have not calmed down about this either and gone to great lengths to try and find anything (even digging up articles from the Samoa Observer which proves nothing other than the characteristic incompetence of the Samoan Union) to promote the idea of a Romanian conspiracy against them.

Firstly there are fabricated statistics claiming the penalty count from the match was either 24-4 or 28-8 against Spain which have been floated about and repeated by numerous players on social media.

Now 24 penalties against one side in a single match let alone 28 is basically unheard of. If those stats were true then they would indeed be such an outlier to raise eyebrows and certainly create some suspicion of highly odd and unusual officiating worthy of further investigation.

However those stats are not correct. The actual penalty count was 18-8 against Spain. Still a very high number for one team to concede in a match but not unprecedentedly so. Nevertheless the fabricated stats have still been repeated in some media reports to try and promote the idea of a conspiracy.

Then came the angrily titled amateur videos running through the performance from Iordachescu. One of which now has well over 100k views, has been shared by several on the Spain team, and reportedly being used by FER to back up their complain about the refereeing performance.

Now to clarify, I am not of the opinion that Iordachescu had a great game, nor did I even rate him particularly highly as a referee before this game. There were mistakes including a couple of ridiculous breakdown penalties given to Belgium with tackler not releasing or not supporting weight. He did not officiate the mauls well throughout. A clear high tackle missed.

However we see mistakes like these in professional games every single week. Often from referees with much bigger reputations as well (a look through Nigel Owens' performance in the match between Exeter and Montpellier earlier this year would result in a much longer video).

This isn't to excuse any errors or claim the ref was perfect, but let's remember what is being alleged here is that this was a display by Iordachescu of some of the most unusually incompetent and crooked refereeing ever seen in order to single handedly cost Spain the match. It is this claim that simply does not hold up.

Among the complaints in a video titled "Critical Review of Referee in Belgium vs Spain - Incompetence, Inconsistency and Integrity" from a video gamer who analyses what is supposedly "one of the worst performances I have seen in any form of rugby".

- He missed a knock in a tackle that wasn't at all obvious and had no effect on the game.
- He should have ignored a lineout throw that wasn't straight as it wasn't "incredibly not straight".
- He played a penalty advantage too long.
- He didn't "set his standards from the start" so had to correctly penalise Spain for dissent (?!).
- He was to slow to award Spain a scrum penalty.
- He didn't give a yellow card for a deliberate knock on.

This hardly constitutes evidence of complete daylight robbery and "one of the worst most bias performances ever seen in the history of rugby" to rank alongside Paddy O'Brien Fiji vs France 1999 World Cup, or Bryce Lawrence and Craig Joubert at the 2011 World Cup, or loads of George Clancy matches (for example Wales vs Argentina 2009) in terms of refereeing awfulness.

Nevertheless Spain have convinced themselves and many others who have hopped aboard a bandwagon of outrage that it is a fact Iordachescu single handedly cost them the game and their place at the World Cup. There are numerous figures in the game who almost certainly didn't watch the full game who are now asserting this with almost complete certainty.

Reality though is simply that Spain did not perform to the level they needed to. This explanation may not be as an exciting for the media or the Twitter mob but that is what happened.

In a match played on a narrow and muddy pitch on a freezing cold day. Belgium kept hold of possession far better, and exposed Spanish weaknesses, especially at scrum (which was the source of 5 penalties conceded) or in a lack of really effective heavy duty close quarter ball carriers (both elements of the game that are essential to winter rugby on heavy pitches), defended well and were deserved winners.

Spain should start to take more responsibility for their defeat. It was not the referee who was pushing them about at scrums or losing collisions, or who for the first 20 minutes of the second half could barely manage more than three phases without losing the ball, or missing penalty kicks at goal etc.

Rumoured details for the new European domestic tournament

A few further rumours have emerged on the new third tier European domestic tournament to involve more sides from outside the 6 Nations.

The stats say on the ENC 1A 2014 season

A look at what the stats say about the current state of each team following the conclusion of the 2014 ENC 1A tournament.

Roundup: ENC 1A March 15

A roundup on the final round of ENC fixtures for 2014, including the big Grand Slam decider between Georgia and Romania in Tbilisi.

Team News: ENC 1A March 15

Team news for the final round of ENC 1A matches including the crucial Grand Slam title deciding match between Georgia and Romania.

Roundup: ENC 1A March 8

A round up on the latest round of fixtures in the ENC. Romania and Georgia both won again to set up their Grand Slam deciding clash whilst Russia confirmed a third place finish.

Team News: ENC 1A March 8

Team news ahead of the fourth round of ENC 1A matches for 2014 and 9th round of Rugby World Cup qualification.

Georgia and Romania coast undefeated to World Cup qualification

Both Georgia and Romania officially secured their qualification for next year’s Rugby World Cup in England this weekend with easy bonus point wins over Russia and Spain, but the poor challenge from the other ENC nations this year has been notable and the trend is becoming a cause for concern.