Jeff Probyn: Biting, refs row, Euro battle…yes, the season’s back!

The season is off and running and once again it’s not the rugby on the field that grabs the headlines. As good and exciting as some of the games were last weekend, they were overshadowed by off-field rows over Europe, referee control and biting without citing.
The one area of expected controversy that never happened was the new scrum call as all the players and referees made a pretty good fist of the first set of games.
It wasn’t perfect, but it was an improvement on last season’s mess and despite the concerns of some of the players and coaches, striking for the ball actually worked and brought competition back to the scrum without injury, or the hooking team being blasted backwards.
Backwards, on the other hand, is just where PRL are taking the game with the threat of a new competition in Europe.
As I have said time and time again, Europe is a bigger game than just the Premiership and Top 14 and if all are serious about changes, the threats must stop.
Nigel Wray says it is inevitable that the Premier clubs will leave the Heineken – but that doesn’t necessarily guarantee a new Anglo-French competition.
The fact is that if the French and English clubs go it alone, the repercussions could be incredibly damaging for the game.
First, if the clubs don’t have the total backing of their Unions, there could be massive financial consequences should a possible breach of contract occur and that could have a long term effect on club finances and players’ wages.
As a shareholder in ERC, the RFU and FFR have commitments to sponsors (Heineken and Sky) and to the other Unions. Those commitments will be enforced by the IRB who could threaten the withdrawal of international matches for both England and France if they fail to control their clubs.
With the World Cup on the horizon, that could have a serious impact on preparations for both nations and on the money available to the RFU for the legacy and the new player release contract with the Premiership.
In France, the FFR are in the process of building their own new stadium (scheduled to finish in 2017) to help give them a stronger financial base and they will not welcome anything that could have a negative influence on sponsors and backers.
It may be that PRL and LNR will try and blackmail their respective Unions into agreement with the threat of no player release for international preparation, as both are currently in negotiations to extend deals.
Both PRL and LNR are bound by IRB regulations to release players for specific international windows but the RFU and FFR pay for an agreement with the clubs for a number of ‘release dates’ when EPSs can meet and prepare for upcoming games.
The FFR have an advantage over the RFU in that the LNR are legally obliged to seek FFR approval before they can take part in any new competition, whereas the PRL are not. As a result, it would be the RFU that would be sanctioned by the IRB who would expect any punishment to be passed on to the clubs if they took part in any unapproved overseas competition.
The French, on the other hand, will probably not get involved in an Anglo-French contest. Their language has been very precise in that they have said they will not play in a European competition without the English – but have indicated that if they pulled out of the Heineken they will possibly expand the Top14 to 16 as part of their new TV deal with Canal+.
A negotiated settlement is the only way that all sides can gain but that will take a little humility from ERC and a willingness to compromise by PRL – something that neither side seem willing to do in what is slowly turning into a suicide pact for all.
PRL are also central to the resignation of Ed Morrison, the head of the RFU’s elite refereeing department who stepped down after the RFU and PRL decided to put in place another layer of administration in an attempt to improve refereeing standards.
All of us would agree that a better standard of refereeing can only help the game and I am sure Ed would go along with that, although this new position has been created because of last seasons’ criticism of referees by Premiership coaches.
All Premiership coaches have a vested interest in one thing – winning. And if they feel a referee is obstructive to their team they will naturally complain.
How valid those complaints are can be difficult to gauge, particularly as the coaches are also trying to keep their jobs by defecting any criticisms when their team lose.
Ed would have reviewed every complaint and taken any necessary action but PRL seem to want to control all aspects of the Premiership, including the match officials and this can only be damaging.
Referees have to learn how to ‘play’ at the top of the game and may make mistakes but there is already a strong referee assessment programme which ‘weeds out’ those that aren’t good enough.
An extra layer of administration part controlled by PRL will only add a level of fear and intimidation and won’t stop losing coaches complaining.
Dan Cole is a brave and, so far lucky, man in playing without a gum-shield. It is the first piece of safety equipment that I would strongly recommend all players to buy. We get only two sets of teeth and the second set have to last a long time which, in a physical game like rugby is highly unlikely if you don’t protect them.
Luckily for Cole, the damage done to Worcester fly-half Ignacio Mieres’ hand by Cole’s unprotected teeth was surprisingly deemed an accident by citing commissioner Peter Larter.
In my opinion, he was reckless for not protecting himself and failed in his duty to protect the other players from the risk of injury.