International Rugby Board president Bernard Lapasset has called for greater unity within the sport after England flanker James Haskell became the latest player to become embroiled in a club-versus-country row.
Lapasset has also urged various bodies to work together on the matter of player punishment as the ongoing David Attoub suspension issue continues to attract unwanted headlines.
Haskell's club, Stade Français,demanded the player be released for their domestic clash with Toulouse last week but England kept hold of him, with Haskell himself saying he was covered by a release clause in his contract.
The row escalated with Stade talking of possible legal action before the flanker put the situation down to a misunderstanding.
International Rugby Board president Lapasset believes the club-versus-country row is best tackled by working together.
Asked about possible solutions to the ongoing issue, he told Press Association Sport: "It depends on the economy. The solution is not a sport solution, it is an economical solution and that is the problem really."
He added: "We need to work together more and more because I know in England they have some trouble, I've seen the press and some information and the economic situation is very fragile. It is also in France but not as much.
"More and more we need to (achieve) a common solution together to manage this process and issues such as the number of clubs, number of players, how many foreign players are allowed in sides.
"We have different issues in front of us to discuss with the clubs and the unions. Because the economy comes first in the professional system."
Lapasset sounded a similar rallying cry on the issue of Attoub, the Stade Français prop banned for 70 weeks for gouging in the Heineken Cup.
While his appeal recently failed, there are suggestions he could return early in domestic competition, at least, if his club appeal to the French Olympic and Sport Committee (CNOSF).
There is a precedent after the 2008 case of Marius Tincu, which saw Perpignan successfully claim his ban from European competition should not extend to domestic action.
Lapasset, however, is concerned about division between governing bodies.
"I don't interfere in the process now because we have the legal issue (concerning Attoub)," he said.
"In principle, however, I am totally convinced that the universality system is a very, very important and strong position that we need to continue.
"Universality sanctions is probably one of the best values we have in rugby.
"In principle we need two things in the professional system: we need proportionality and we need consistency. We need to adapt our system for those two elements, to be sure that we can manage the universality process to be fair with clubs around the world depending on nationality and the format of the competition.
"We need proportionality of the sanctions and consistency in the sanctions. That is important if we are to manage the right process to be sure that the professional system can continue in this way with the universality of sanctions, that is my opinion."
Comments
choky says...
well dont agree there is one universal rule - the french always get it in the .... (attoub - dupuy etc etc)
Posted 17:19 11th March 2010
KiwiRooster says...
Lapasset, the former FFR President (French Federation of Rugby) who did absolutely nothing to improve the relationship with the French clubs League (LNR) when he was in power. He probably already had his seat at the IRB on sight, so I guess he could not bother to do the job he was paid for at the time. Isn't it ironic? During all the time he was at the head of the FFR while Serge Blanco was at the head of the LNR, nothing ever happened. The LNR and FFR have never been so close since the two men left.
"Universality sanctions is probably one of the best values we have in rugby" is that right, universality? in World rugby? Well, that one is pretty rich. One player gets an 8 weeks ban with the IRB, another gets 70 weeks with the ERC for the same offense. One player banned by the ERC during the Heineken Cup gets systematically banned from playing for his country and for his club on the domestic championship. (ex. Dupuy) In the meantime, another player gets banned by the Six Nations committee but it does not apply to the Heineken Cup nor the Domestic League. (ex. Flannery). Read the news, Lapasset. There is NO universality because men like you and your predecessors cared more about their personal business and career plan than what they were initially appointed for.
Go on the road Bernard, do your freaking job, talk to the Federations and the Leagues and see how you can get some results instead of lecturing us. Trying to sell us the concept of universality in World rugby is like trying to sell sand to the Arabs.
Posted 23:18 09th March 2010