It seems Aussie rugby chief' John O'Neill just can't prevent himself from talking out of his arse, scaremongering threats gushing forth in a tourettes-like fashion whenever he doesn't get his own way.
Fresh from having recently issued dire warnings about the potential extinction of one of the rugby codes in Australia, O'Neill is now said to be "furious" at the continued resistance by by England, Ireland and Wales to some of his cherished ELVs and has threatened that rugby faces splitting in two.
"Where we're up to today is a risk that we end up with two games, with two different sets of laws," says O'Neill. “You’d hate to think we’d end up in a situation of two games but it could happen.”
O'Neill's attempts to justify his position include the following ludicrous statement:
“The last two weekends we’ve seen the Springboks play the All Blacks in two wonderful Test matches and we’ve seen Australia versus France and Australia versus Ireland and the All Blacks versus England under the old laws. You don’t have to be Einstein to figure out which game is a far more impressive spectacle."
Of course you also don't have to be Einstein to figure out that it might have been the 2 teams involved, rather than the laws, that made the difference. Or does he think we are all fools?
It's the coaches, he says, rather than the administrators who should be involved in the decision making:
"The blazer gang shouldn't be involved in determining the laws of the game, they should be determined by the people who are absolute practitioners and live and die on the technical side of rugby."
OK, John, if that's the case then why not shut the **** up and leave it to those who know what they're talking about? Funnily enough, in England it's the Premiership's various head coaches who are amongst the most vociferous opponents to many of the ELVs. Or don't they count?
“If we want rugby to continue to grow as a true international game second only to football, we’ve got to move away from this southern hemisphere-northern hemisphere battle lines, ” he says.
Perfectly reasonable, you'd think, except that O'Neill wouldn't recognise a reasoned and logical argument if it bit him in the balls, a point emphasised by his next comment:
“What would a World Cup be if Australia, New Zealand and South Africa didn’t play in it?"
What? Is he honestly suggesting that they'd boycott a World Cup?