Rule change required for Euro Cup

First topic message reminder :

Rule change required as the Pro 14 is too easy compared to the Aviva Prem and Top 14 as it allows teams to rest so many players for European and International games.

The Prem needs to have a world with the EuroCup organisers and make it harder for them.

The last thing this competition needs is an all Pro14 final.

Also think it’s unfair that the Scarlets have to go to Dublin, the semi should be at a neutral ground.

Another rule change required

Recwatcher16 wrote:If you look objectively at the brief history of the euro cups, player fatigue/ injuries is a factor but not the deciding factor in one-off cup games.
The history shows the dominant sides in the competition Toulouse, Leicester, Bath (briefly), Munster, Leinster, Saracens all had the bulk of the Test side in their ranks. The only outlier was Toulon.

The IRFU trump card is that the test team is only ever seriously going to come from two teams - those players get test exposure and you can see that experience come through in club games.

The delicious irony in all this is that some of the irish on here criticize the club game in france & england but without it these euro comps would have no teams, fans or finance.

If England  put their top sixty players into two squads, they might do quite well too.

Really? Where is all this finance in the ERCC? A competition that is yet to get a named sponsor and that has had a botched tv setup in its short life thanks to the English and French

Recwatcher16 wrote:If you look objectively at the brief history of the euro cups, player fatigue/ injuries is a factor but not the deciding factor in one-off cup games.
The history shows the dominant sides in the competition Toulouse, Leicester, Bath (briefly), Munster, Leinster, Saracens all had the bulk of the Test side in their ranks. The only outlier was Toulon.

The IRFU trump card is that the test team is only ever seriously going to come from two teams - those players get test exposure and you can see that experience come through in club games.

The delicious irony in all this is that some of the irish on here criticize the club game in france & england but without it these euro comps would have no teams, fans or finance.

If England  put their top sixty players into two squads, they might do quite well too.

The provincial and regional setups get criticized plenty on here too. The fact is different setups work for different nations. If Ireland went down the club route then over half the country would not be represented by a professional team, just like our soccer league...Which isnt even fully professional despite soccer being way more popular than rugby here. The club system works very well for England and France however.

The club system works great for us this is true, but for the EC it doesn't work, especially when a whole league is geared to make a couple of Teams strong in Europe, whilst the rest get left behind year on year.

I would love to see it played in one block and have the league in one block. Not going to happen though

Is Leavy or VDF the first choice player who gets rested or Healy and McGrath. A good team has a good squad

TightHEAD wrote:The club system works great for us this is true, but for the EC it doesn't work, especially when a whole league is geared to make a couple of Teams strong in Europe, whilst the rest get left behind year on year.

The club system - as currently organised - does not work great for the whole of English rugby. It prioritises one tier of rugby over others.

The PRO14 Championship and its constituent teams suits the objectives of the five unions who are involved in it, because it develops and manages their players for all three tiers of rugby - championship, European and Test level.

Yet you're proposing that five unions change their structure to supposedly get in line with English rugby.

Your argument reminds me of the old Irving Berlin line: "They were all out of step, but Jim."

TightHEAD wrote:Also think it’s unfair that the Scarlets have to go to Dublin, the semi should be at a neutral ground.

Another rule change required

Have to agree with that one...

Why is the semi being held in the Aviva giving Leinster home advantage.

Although a trip to Dublin is more appealing than other venues ..

No9 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Also think it’s unfair that the Scarlets have to go to Dublin, the semi should be at a neutral ground.

Another rule change required

Have to agree with that one...

Why is the semi being held in the Aviva giving Leinster home advantage.

Although a trip to Dublin is more appealing than other venues ..

It's not Leinster's designated home ground. Nobody complains when sarries use Wembley or Twickers.

I know that, but it’s still an home advantage. Would be like the Blues playing in the MS.

Bad planning on part of the organisers, or maybe perfect planning

No9 wrote:I know that, but it’s still an home advantage. Would be like the Blues playing in the MS.

Bad planning on part of the organisers, or maybe perfect planning

But the blues have used the MS before! (09 HC semi v Leicester) This isn't a new thing, Leinster have used the aviva before in the 2011 semi final against Toulouse.

I know.... I was there...

No9 wrote:I know that, but it’s still an home advantage. Would be like the Blues playing in the MS.

Bad planning on part of the organisers, or maybe perfect planning

What’s your suggested alternative for the organisers based in Switzerland with a board dominated by club owners from Wales, England and France, chaired by an Englishman and largely French staffed who have three weeks to find a venue, agree terms, and market it and sell tickets to fans?

Do tell. I’m all ears.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:If you look objectively at the brief history of the euro cups, player fatigue/ injuries is a factor but not the deciding factor in one-off cup games.
The history shows the dominant sides in the competition Toulouse, Leicester, Bath (briefly), Munster, Leinster, Saracens all had the bulk of the Test side in their ranks. The only outlier was Toulon.

The IRFU trump card is that the test team is only ever seriously going to come from two teams - those players get test exposure and you can see that experience come through in club games.

The delicious irony in all this is that some of the irish on here criticize the club game in france & england but without it these euro comps would have no teams, fans or finance.

If England  put their top sixty players into two squads, they might do quite well too.

The provincial and regional setups get criticized plenty on here too. The fact is different setups work for different nations. If Ireland went down the club route then over half the country would not be represented by a professional team, just like our soccer league...Which isnt even fully professional despite soccer being way more popular than rugby here. The club system works very well for England and France however.

I agree to an extent (if you believe in a top down structure) but that leads to an uneven competition with those sides who are the default for test players in basically trials sides for the next round of internationals.
If teams/leagues/Unions start to believe that the playing field is not level then no-one should be surprised if that gets challenged - none of this is mandatory.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:If you look objectively at the brief history of the euro cups, player fatigue/ injuries is a factor but not the deciding factor in one-off cup games.
The history shows the dominant sides in the competition Toulouse, Leicester, Bath (briefly), Munster, Leinster, Saracens all had the bulk of the Test side in their ranks. The only outlier was Toulon.

The IRFU trump card is that the test team is only ever seriously going to come from two teams - those players get test exposure and you can see that experience come through in club games.

The delicious irony in all this is that some of the irish on here criticize the club game in france & england but without it these euro comps would have no teams, fans or finance.

If England  put their top sixty players into two squads, they might do quite well too.

The provincial and regional setups get criticized plenty on here too. The fact is different setups work for different nations. If Ireland went down the club route then over half the country would not be represented by a professional team, just like our soccer league...Which isnt even fully professional despite soccer being way more popular than rugby here. The club system works very well for England and France however.

I agree to an extent (if you believe in a top down structure) but that leads to an uneven competition with those sides who are the default for test players in basically trials sides for the next round of internationals.
If teams/leagues/Unions start to believe that the playing field is not level then no-one should be surprised if that gets challenged - none of this is mandatory.

When a team breaks the agreed upon salary cap should they be punished in an open and transparent way? I'm sure you agree that a team that willingly breaks the aforementioned salary cap then goes out if there way to bully the rest of the league to make sure it's all kept secret is a terrible way to ensure a level playing field?

Recwatcher16 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:If you look objectively at the brief history of the euro cups, player fatigue/ injuries is a factor but not the deciding factor in one-off cup games.
The history shows the dominant sides in the competition Toulouse, Leicester, Bath (briefly), Munster, Leinster, Saracens all had the bulk of the Test side in their ranks. The only outlier was Toulon.

The IRFU trump card is that the test team is only ever seriously going to come from two teams - those players get test exposure and you can see that experience come through in club games.

The delicious irony in all this is that some of the irish on here criticize the club game in france & england but without it these euro comps would have no teams, fans or finance.

If England  put their top sixty players into two squads, they might do quite well too.

The provincial and regional setups get criticized plenty on here too. The fact is different setups work for different nations. If Ireland went down the club route then over half the country would not be represented by a professional team, just like our soccer league...Which isnt even fully professional despite soccer being way more popular than rugby here. The club system works very well for England and France however.

I agree to an extent (if you believe in a top down structure) but that leads to an uneven competition with those sides who are the default for test players in basically trials sides for the next round of internationals.
If teams/leagues/Unions start to believe that the playing field is not level then no-one should be surprised if that gets challenged - none of this is mandatory.

I agree... it's unfair that the provinces can only sign a maximum of 4 foreign players unlike Toulon, who can spring an AB off the bench (Fekitoa) for another AB (Nonu) and Montpelier who only fielded 3 french players against us in the pool stages. We really would be at a huge disadvantage if it wasn't for the fantastic work put into the academies with Leinster clearly having one of the best in world rugby.

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:I know that, but it’s still an home advantage. Would be like the Blues playing in the MS.

Bad planning on part of the organisers, or maybe perfect planning

What’s your suggested alternative for the organisers based in Switzerland with a board dominated by club owners from Wales, England and France, chaired by an Englishman and largely French staffed who have three weeks to find a venue, agree terms, and market it and sell tickets to fans?

Do tell.  I’m all ears.

I just said they’d have home advantage. Now you tell me they don’t.

Ok, let’s let Nigel Owens ref, just like Dublin isn’t home advantage for Leinster, the worlds best referee wont be any advantage to the Scarlets.

No9 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:I know that, but it’s still an home advantage. Would be like the Blues playing in the MS.

Bad planning on part of the organisers, or maybe perfect planning

What’s your suggested alternative for the organisers based in Switzerland with a board dominated by club owners from Wales, England and France, chaired by an Englishman and largely French staffed who have three weeks to find a venue, agree terms, and market it and sell tickets to fans?

Do tell.  I’m all ears.

I just said they’d have home advantage. Now you tell me they don’t.

Ok, let’s let Nigel Owens ref, just like Dublin isn’t home advantage for Leinster, the worlds best referee wont be any advantage to the Scarlets.

You asked why were Leinster being allowed to play in the Aviva. Because the current rules state that home semifinalists are allowed propose a home country venue other than their home ground. Hence Cardiff could suggest the Millennium, Scarlets the Millennium, Ospreys the Millennium, etc, etc.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:If you look objectively at the brief history of the euro cups, player fatigue/ injuries is a factor but not the deciding factor in one-off cup games.
The history shows the dominant sides in the competition Toulouse, Leicester, Bath (briefly), Munster, Leinster, Saracens all had the bulk of the Test side in their ranks. The only outlier was Toulon.

The IRFU trump card is that the test team is only ever seriously going to come from two teams - those players get test exposure and you can see that experience come through in club games.

The delicious irony in all this is that some of the irish on here criticize the club game in france & england but without it these euro comps would have no teams, fans or finance.

If England  put their top sixty players into two squads, they might do quite well too.

The provincial and regional setups get criticized plenty on here too. The fact is different setups work for different nations. If Ireland went down the club route then over half the country would not be represented by a professional team, just like our soccer league...Which isnt even fully professional despite soccer being way more popular than rugby here. The club system works very well for England and France however.

I agree to an extent (if you believe in a top down structure) but that leads to an uneven competition with those sides who are the default for test players in basically trials sides for the next round of internationals.
If teams/leagues/Unions start to believe that the playing field is not level then no-one should be surprised if that gets challenged - none of this is mandatory.

I agree... it's unfair that the provinces can only sign a maximum of 4 foreign players unlike Toulon, who can spring an AB off the bench (Fekitoa) for another AB (Nonu) and Montpelier who only fielded 3 french players against us in the pool stages. We really would be at a huge disadvantage if it wasn't for the fantastic work put into the academies with Leinster clearly having one of the best in world rugby.

Strange response, given an elitist top down structure has to limit the number of non qualified players with an arbitrary number.
Leinster having the best academy is also a strange response given it is the Test arena experience that makes them successful at domestic/euro level - not the other way round. Perhaps next you are going to suggest the Irish test team is just as likely to all be from Ulster or Connacht ?

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:I know that, but it’s still an home advantage. Would be like the Blues playing in the MS.

Bad planning on part of the organisers, or maybe perfect planning

What’s your suggested alternative for the organisers based in Switzerland with a board dominated by club owners from Wales, England and France, chaired by an Englishman and largely French staffed who have three weeks to find a venue, agree terms, and market it and sell tickets to fans?

Do tell.  I’m all ears.

I just said they’d have home advantage. Now you tell me they don’t.

Ok, let’s let Nigel Owens ref, just like Dublin isn’t home advantage for Leinster, the worlds best referee wont be any advantage to the Scarlets.

You asked why were Leinster being allowed to play in the Aviva.    Because the current rules state that home semifinalists are allowed propose a home country venue other than their home ground.  Hence Cardiff could suggest the Millennium, Scarlets the Millennium, Ospreys the Millennium, etc, etc.

Strange answer....

So how come the decision to play at the Avila or the Richoc stadiums where decided BEFORE the quarter finals had been played.

Also, how come if Sarries had won, the Scarlets, who finished the pools higher than Saracans, as Scarlets had a home QF, they had no say in where the semis would be.

I understand the decision on where they play had to be called earlier, but I found it strange that it said the semis would be in the Avila or the Ricoh depending on the result of their game.

But no matter which way you put it, it does give Leinster an home advantage.

No9 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:I know that, but it’s still an home advantage. Would be like the Blues playing in the MS.

Bad planning on part of the organisers, or maybe perfect planning

What’s your suggested alternative for the organisers based in Switzerland with a board dominated by club owners from Wales, England and France, chaired by an Englishman and largely French staffed who have three weeks to find a venue, agree terms, and market it and sell tickets to fans?

Do tell.  I’m all ears.

I just said they’d have home advantage. Now you tell me they don’t.

Ok, let’s let Nigel Owens ref, just like Dublin isn’t home advantage for Leinster, the worlds best referee wont be any advantage to the Scarlets.

You asked why were Leinster being allowed to play in the Aviva.    Because the current rules state that home semifinalists are allowed propose a home country venue other than their home ground.  Hence Cardiff could suggest the Millennium, Scarlets the Millennium, Ospreys the Millennium, etc, etc.

Strange answer....

So how come the decision to play at the Avila or the Richoc stadiums where decided BEFORE the quarter finals had been played.

Also, how come if Sarries had won, the Scarlets, who finished the pools higher than Saracans, as Scarlets had a home QF, they had no say in where the semis would be.

I understand the decision on where they play had to be called earlier, but I found it strange that it said the semis would be in the Avila or the Ricoh depending on the result of their game.

But no matter which way you put it, it does give Leinster an home advantage.

The decision on the nominated semi-final venues is decided in advance so that bookings/marketing/promotion plans can be advanced.   However, you seem to be unfamiliar with the competition rules which determine who gets a home semi-final.  Perhaps read those first here and you'll have your questions answered.  And yes, the concept of a home country venue for the semi-final is meant to be a benefit to the home team.  No matter which way you put it. I realise you may not have watched the competition before, but the rules on the home country neutral venue have been that way for over a decade.

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:I know that, but it’s still an home advantage. Would be like the Blues playing in the MS.

Bad planning on part of the organisers, or maybe perfect planning

What’s your suggested alternative for the organisers based in Switzerland with a board dominated by club owners from Wales, England and France, chaired by an Englishman and largely French staffed who have three weeks to find a venue, agree terms, and market it and sell tickets to fans?

Do tell.  I’m all ears.

I just said they’d have home advantage. Now you tell me they don’t.

Ok, let’s let Nigel Owens ref, just like Dublin isn’t home advantage for Leinster, the worlds best referee wont be any advantage to the Scarlets.

You asked why were Leinster being allowed to play in the Aviva.    Because the current rules state that home semifinalists are allowed propose a home country venue other than their home ground.  Hence Cardiff could suggest the Millennium, Scarlets the Millennium, Ospreys the Millennium, etc, etc.

Strange answer....

So how come the decision to play at the Avila or the Richoc stadiums where decided BEFORE the quarter finals had been played.

Also, how come if Sarries had won, the Scarlets, who finished the pools higher than Saracans, as Scarlets had a home QF, they had no say in where the semis would be.

I understand the decision on where they play had to be called earlier, but I found it strange that it said the semis would be in the Avila or the Ricoh depending on the result of their game.

But no matter which way you put it, it does give Leinster an home advantage.

The decision on the nominated semi-final venues is decided in advance so that bookings/marketing/promotion plans can be advanced.   However, you seem to be unfamiliar with the competition rules which determine who gets a home semi-final.  Perhaps read those first here and you'll have your questions answered.  And yes, the concept of a home country venue for the semi-final is meant to be a benefit to the home team.  No matter which way you put it.  I realise you may not have watched the competition before, but the rules on the home country neutral venue have been that way for over a decade.  

Who said I haven’t watched this tournament before.... seen everyone since the conception of European rugby.

You don’t half talk some bollox...

So, it was decided before the QF where played, using your logic, that either Leinster or Saracens would decide the semi final venue and The Scarlets or La Rochelle would not have a say. As it was decided that Leinster or Saracens would be the home semi finalist...

So how is that fair...

But either way, it doesn’t change what I’ve said, that Leinster have an unfair home advantage.

No9 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:I know that, but it’s still an home advantage. Would be like the Blues playing in the MS.

Bad planning on part of the organisers, or maybe perfect planning

What’s your suggested alternative for the organisers based in Switzerland with a board dominated by club owners from Wales, England and France, chaired by an Englishman and largely French staffed who have three weeks to find a venue, agree terms, and market it and sell tickets to fans?

Do tell.  I’m all ears.

I just said they’d have home advantage. Now you tell me they don’t.

Ok, let’s let Nigel Owens ref, just like Dublin isn’t home advantage for Leinster, the worlds best referee wont be any advantage to the Scarlets.

You asked why were Leinster being allowed to play in the Aviva.    Because the current rules state that home semifinalists are allowed propose a home country venue other than their home ground.  Hence Cardiff could suggest the Millennium, Scarlets the Millennium, Ospreys the Millennium, etc, etc.

Strange answer....

So how come the decision to play at the Avila or the Richoc stadiums where decided BEFORE the quarter finals had been played.

Also, how come if Sarries had won, the Scarlets, who finished the pools higher than Saracans, as Scarlets had a home QF, they had no say in where the semis would be.

I understand the decision on where they play had to be called earlier, but I found it strange that it said the semis would be in the Avila or the Ricoh depending on the result of their game.

But no matter which way you put it, it does give Leinster an home advantage.

The decision on the nominated semi-final venues is decided in advance so that bookings/marketing/promotion plans can be advanced.   However, you seem to be unfamiliar with the competition rules which determine who gets a home semi-final.  Perhaps read those first here and you'll have your questions answered.  And yes, the concept of a home country venue for the semi-final is meant to be a benefit to the home team.  No matter which way you put it.  I realise you may not have watched the competition before, but the rules on the home country neutral venue have been that way for over a decade.  

Who said I haven’t watched this tournament before.... seen everyone since the conception of European rugby.

You don’t half talk some bollox...

So, it was decided before the QF where played, using your logic, that either Leinster or Saracens would decide the semi final venue and The Scarlets or La Rochelle would not have a say. As it was decided that Leinster or Saracens would be the home semi finalist...

So how is that fair...

But either way, it doesn’t change what I’ve said, that Leinster have an unfair home advantage.

Are you Lord Dowlais in disguise?   You appear unable or unwilling to read and comprehend, and instead wish to take offence, and reach inaccurate conclusions.  

It appears you are not familiar with the rules of the competition hence why I said "I realise that you may not have watched...".    I helpfully provided you with a link in my previous post to the competition rules which you've evidently ignored.  Here it is again.  If you read them you will understand how a team is awarded a home semi-final.  Perhaps read those first here and you'll have your questions answered.   It's not my logic.  These are the rules. Here is EPCR's announcement on 29 March of the semifinal venues, how home country is decided and how venues were chosen. If you want to lodge a protest to EPCR about a ten-year old rule about unfair home advantage, don't let me stop you.

I don’t need to check your link, I know the ruling.  Suggest you read more posts, before you try and make a point as you’ve missed my point totally.

I’m referring to the unfair home advantage Leinster will have. It is easily resolved, by moving it to the Ricoh as that was the alternative stadium.

As for the rules, my response (above) said this is ONE rule tha5 should change.... as quoted below.

No9 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Also think it’s unfair that the Scarlets have to go to Dublin, the semi should be at a neutral ground.

Another rule change required

Have to agree with that one...

Why is the semi being held in the Aviva giving Leinster home advantage.

Although a trip to Dublin is more appealing than other venues ..

Although I realise TightHEAD was only wummimg. So that’s my last word on this...

No9 wrote: I don’t need to check your link, I know the ruling.  Suggest you read more posts, before you try and make a point as you’ve missed my point totally.

I’m referring to the unfair home advantage Leinster will have. It is easily resolved, by moving it to the Ricoh as that was the alternative stadium.

As for the rules, my response (above) said this is ONE rule tha5 should change.... as quoted below.

No9 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Also think it’s unfair that the Scarlets have to go to Dublin, the semi should be at a neutral ground.

Another rule change required

Have to agree with that one...

Why is the semi being held in the Aviva giving Leinster home advantage.

Although a trip to Dublin is more appealing than other venues ..

Although I realise TightHEAD was only wummimg. So that’s my last word on this...

Sigh. No - Ricoh was not the alternative venue. It's not a ruling. You don't know the rules of the tournament.

Read the rules or the EPCR announcement I've also linked above. Your stubbornness is getting in the way of your understanding. Read how home country is decided - the possible outcomes for Semi-final 1 were either Lansdowne Road, Dublin; Ricoh Arena, Coventry, or Stade Chaban-Delmas (Bordeaux). In SF2, the possibilities were Stade Geoffroy Guichard (Saint-Etienne), Stade Chaban-Delmas (Bordeaux), or Alllianz Riviera Stadium (Nice).

I think the final should always be at Rugby's HQ.

TightHEAD wrote:I think the final should always be at Rugby's HQ.

Eden Park?

One of the greatest WUMs on here for some time. Just like the one on social Media where the "head" of English Rugby says to even things out, the English teams should get more points for scoring tries than the other nations because they have to try harder

tigertattie wrote:One of the greatest WUMs on here for some time. Just like the one on social Media where the "head" of English Rugby says to even things out, the English teams should get more points for scoring tries than the other nations because they have to try harder

Sounds entirely reasonable to me......

No9 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No9 wrote:I know that, but it’s still an home advantage. Would be like the Blues playing in the MS.

Bad planning on part of the organisers, or maybe perfect planning

What’s your suggested alternative for the organisers based in Switzerland with a board dominated by club owners from Wales, England and France, chaired by an Englishman and largely French staffed who have three weeks to find a venue, agree terms, and market it and sell tickets to fans?

Do tell.  I’m all ears.

I just said they’d have home advantage. Now you tell me they don’t.

Ok, let’s let Nigel Owens ref, just like Dublin isn’t home advantage for Leinster, the worlds best referee wont be any advantage to the Scarlets.

You asked why were Leinster being allowed to play in the Aviva.    Because the current rules state that home semifinalists are allowed propose a home country venue other than their home ground.  Hence Cardiff could suggest the Millennium, Scarlets the Millennium, Ospreys the Millennium, etc, etc.

Strange answer....

So how come the decision to play at the Avila or the Richoc stadiums where decided BEFORE the quarter finals had been played.

Also, how come if Sarries had won, the Scarlets, who finished the pools higher than Saracans, as Scarlets had a home QF, they had no say in where the semis would be.

I understand the decision on where they play had to be called earlier, but I found it strange that it said the semis would be in the Avila or the Ricoh depending on the result of their game.

But no matter which way you put it, it does give Leinster an home advantage.

The decision on the nominated semi-final venues is decided in advance so that bookings/marketing/promotion plans can be advanced.   However, you seem to be unfamiliar with the competition rules which determine who gets a home semi-final.  Perhaps read those first here and you'll have your questions answered.  And yes, the concept of a home country venue for the semi-final is meant to be a benefit to the home team.  No matter which way you put it.  I realise you may not have watched the competition before, but the rules on the home country neutral venue have been that way for over a decade.  

Who said I haven’t watched this tournament before.... seen everyone since the conception of European rugby.

You don’t half talk some bollox...

So, it was decided before the QF where played, using your logic, that either Leinster or Saracens would decide the semi final venue and The Scarlets or La Rochelle would not have a say. As it was decided that Leinster or Saracens would be the home semi finalist...

So how is that fair...

But either way, it doesn’t change what I’ve said, that Leinster have an unfair home advantage.

La Rochelle would have had a say. If they had beaten Scarlets they would have been at 'home' for a semi final against Leinster.
This hasn't been a rule for decades but has been a tweak from the new competition format. The problem is the lack of away victories in the knockout stages during the old HCup. So the new set up tries to ensure that any team that gets an away victory in a quarter final, would be rewarded with a home-semi final. But where both home sides win their quarter finals, one has to be at home and the other has to be on the road. Seems that Leinster being 1 seed from the pool stages comes back into the rules at that point. Not sure how that's far, Scarlets managed 2 LBPs during their pool stage, Leinster couldn't even manage to pick up a single LBP during their pool matches.

On rule changes, one I'd propose would be to remove the ban on some pro14 teams from taking part. It was made abundantly clear during the last negotiations that the Euro Cup was NOT a competition of teams from the 6N unions, it should be a competition taking the best from the 3 leagues. The pro14 has some new teams since then, if they finish high enough to be eligible for entry they shouldn't be barred by PRL/LNR. If not, then any additional teams into expanded french/english leagues in the future should also be barred from entry to the Euro Cup to ensure consistency.

Another rule change would be that teams should be fined heavily for fielding weakened teams in the final rounds of the pools stages when they are out of the qualification hunt. PRL/LNR are always moaning about other sides resting players or in essence throwing games in the latter rounds, this should be stamped out.

Any side competing in the Euro Cup should be representing their league. The matchday squad should have a minimum number of players from the countries that make up that league. So any english side should have [13] of their matchday squad from England as the Jeff is the english league, same for the french sides and same for the pro14 sides (of course to be fair and equitable Barclay and Beirne at Scarlets would still count as valid numbers as they are from pro14 countries). Only fair.

Recwatcher16 wrote:If you look objectively at the brief history of the euro cups, player fatigue/ injuries is a factor but not the deciding factor in one-off cup games.
The history shows the dominant sides in the competition Toulouse, Leicester, Bath (briefly), Munster, Leinster, Saracens all had the bulk of the Test side in their ranks. The only outlier was Toulon.

The IRFU trump card is that the test team is only ever seriously going to come from two teams - those players get test exposure and you can see that experience come through in club games.

The delicious irony in all this is that some of the irish on here criticize the club game in france & england but without it these euro comps would have no teams, fans or finance.

If England  put their top sixty players into two squads, they might do quite well too.

Ulster were as (briefly) dominant as Bath were. I would have thought that Wasps would get a look in on your list, they are multiple winners and that side was putting key leaders into the English Test side during that time.

Bandwagon, it would.be quite hard to say what is a weakened team in some respects. Football has this problem and rugby is harder to still to point to definitively. Given recent actions around concussion around well all a team would have to do was state a player was showing symptoms. Impossible to enforce.

I doubt you'd get the french or English leagues to agree to a limit on players who don't qualify for the national teams and may of introduced extend unintended consequences of players with duel.qualification having pressure put on them to not play for Scotland for example.

What is a weakened team for Leinster. If they start Healy and put McGrath on the bench is that weakening the team. In the Munster Toulon match Munster started with what many considered the second choice front row.

A good team has a competitive first and second of each position that are often hard to tell who is first choice.