RFU chairman Martyn Thomas Japanese Rugby Union president Nobby Mashimo have reason to smile alongside the Webb Ellis Cup © Getty Images

The prospect of the sport’s showpiece event taking place outside its traditional boundaries is certainly an exciting one and the fact it will be visiting Asia – a continent with a true hunger for the game - makes the announcement all the more pleasing.

The decision to break new ground is long overdue of course but should be applauded all the same as a brave and bold move. Japan should perhaps be preparing to welcome the world’s best in 2011 but they lost out to New Zealand in the race for that tournament as a result of the dark arts otherwise known as committee room manoeuvrings.

On that occasion the rugby world appeared to be aligning itself behind Japan but the tournament was handed to New Zealand in a surprising and somewhat controversial turnaround. Thankfully for Japan there was no last-minute heartbreak this time and I am confident that the home of the Cherry Blossoms - currently ranked 14th in the world and not yet assured of a place at RWC'11 - will breathe new life into the tournament.

The International Rugby Board (IRB) have repeatedly opted for the safe bet of a World Cup hosted by a leading nation instead of breaking the mould by staging a tournament in a country where the sport does not have such a strong foothold. But the sport’s powerbrokers cannot be criticised too readily for taking such a stance.

Rugby is no different to any other professional sport and above all – money talks. The fact that the IRB gets 95% of its income from the tournament underlines the fact that they need to get it right when it comes to handing out the hosting rights. This is not a game of pass-the-parcel at a child’s birthday party – there is no obligation to share the prize.

The decision to opt for England may well have been made in Dublin on Tuesday afternoon – or perhaps last month when the Rugby Football Union received the significant backing of tournament organisers Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) – but the path to this day leads way back to November 18, 2005 when New Zealand were awarded the rights to host Rugby World Cup 2011.

The conclusion reached that day put the IRB in a bind that brought us here today.

With the battle for the Webb Ellis Cup continuing to grow in terms of popularity and commercial importance (it is the world third-largest sporting event behind the Olympics and the Fifa World Cup) there was a misguided feeling that the tournament had to return to New Zealand before it became too big an event to be staged in the Land of the Long White Cloud. There would have been no such sympathy had that process taken place amidst a financial recession such as that which we are witnessing now. Let's leave the emotion on the field and ban it from the boardroom in the future.

Rugby World Cup 2007 in France was outstanding in many aspects including the bulging balance sheet it produced with a £122m surplus thanks to lucrative sponsorship packages, broadcasting deals and merchandising revenue. Plus tournament organisers sold a staggering 2.2m tickets.

In contrast, New Zealand is predicted to make a £20m loss - the first in Rugby World Cup history - largely due to the size of stadia and the global economic turndown. Ticket revenue is New Zealand's only way of covering the reported NZ$320m cost of hosting the tournament as the IRB keeps all other income. With a limited amount of tickets set to be released the hosts are highly unlikely to reap any direct reward and will no doubt hope for a positive effect in terms of tourism to offset this.

Limited stadia also surely mean less hospitality options and less fans spending money on official merchandise which will no doubt eat into the IRB's revenue from the tournament. The big TV rights deals for the tournament - the ones covering Europe - have yet to be agreed but the downturn in advertising revenue will hamper any bid from a commercial broadcaster. In the UK, ITV (broadcasters of RWC'07) are suffering in the economic climate with the license fee-funded BBC and satelite broadcaster Sky waiting in the wings. Either way the level of fees agreed will be another interesting talking point with time zones demanding early morning kick offs in Europe where evening kick offs would command the higher advertising revenue.

There is no way the New Zealand tournament will match that of their French counterparts and the IRB know this and are planning to make up that shortfall at the earliest opportunity. There are no financial gurarantees in place for 2011 as opposed to 2015 and 2019 when the hosts will have to stump up £80m and £96m respectively.

The IRB bean counters will be working overtime as they are committed to spending £150m on the development of the game in the next four years alone and so a tournament in England made commercial sense long before the 26-strong IRB Council had waded through the hefty dossier produced by RWCL and their consulting partners.

The figures produced by the RFU in their own detailed bid will have had the eyes of Bernard Lapasset, chairman of both the IRB and RWCL, and his fellow suits rolling like the reels on a slot machine. England’s “low risk, high return” approach and their pledge to generate in the region of £300m for the game were obviously powerful persuaders although an eventual 16-10 vote suggests the RFU did not have it all their own way.

RWCL’s endorsement of the English and Japanese bids meant that any other result from today’s vote would have made a laughing stock of the sport. But such is the shadow of the sport’s amateur ways that today’s finale to an 11-month tender process risked such ridicule - especially when you invite the world's media along. And the vote count, Japan won by the same margin, suggests that such a scenario was all too near to becoming an embarrassing reality.

Delight for England and Japan obviously means disappointment for South Africa and Italy – the other two bidders to have reached this far in the process.

According to reports, South Africa fought until the finish to turn the tide in their favour but for the second tournament in a row – they were also edged out for RWC’11 when they arguably held commercial sway – they must admit defeat.

They may have offered a larger guarantee than that demanded by the IRB for the 2015 and 2019 events respectively but most importantly they could not match the overall commercial clout of England. The South African Rugby Union’s failure to capitalise on this year’s British & Irish Lions tour, with empty seats at nearly all the games, will not have been missed by the IRB. As a result they must now wait until at least 2023 to play host to the world’s best once again.

Development of the game was the key factor in this process both in terms of funding it and delivering on that long-held promise. In Lapasset’s own words there was a need to, “maximise commercial revenues for re-investment in the Game.”

England, with their passionate fans and world-class stadiums, will no doubt deliver a superb tournament as part of what is set to be an unprecedented ‘decade of sport’ and more importantly a healthy financial return. OK, it will once again see games take place in another country but we can put up with a trip or two to the magnificent Millennium Stadium - at least the tournament will not be as watered down as it was in 1991.

But it is the staging of the 2019 event that will have true fans talking and do not be surprised if Japan, with an amazing ten years to prepare, laughs off its doubters with the greatest tournament the sport has ever seen. The sport's biggest prize is truly in safe hands.

The findings of the investigation into Harlequins’ controversial blood substitution during their Heineken Cup quarter-final clash with Leinster are set to spark yet more debate after seemingly singling out Tom Williams as the guilty party.

The Quins fullback/wing has been hit with a 12 month ban for his part in the unsavoury incident that played out at The Stoop having been found guilty of, “fabricating a wound or blood injury” that allowed specialist kicker Nick Evans back onto the field. A late drop goal effort from Evans that could have won the game for the hosts sailed wide but the damage was already done as he should not have been on the field.

Williams’ guilt is not in question – his wink to the bench that was caught by TV cameras will have sealed his fate - but what does not ring true is the fact that he appears to have been made the scapegoat with team management, coaches and medical staff cleared of wrongdoing.

The club may have been hit with a hefty £215,000 fine – with half of it suspended for two years – but the implication that Williams was acting alone is laughable.

Do players carry blood capsules (or whatever else was used on this occasion to mimic blood) as part of their kit these days? No. Is Williams blessed with amazing foresight to the point that he would have tucked such a device down his sock that day? No. But the findings of this investigation expect us to believe otherwise.

It has taken over three months for the independent inquiry to reach this unsatisfactory conclusion which is the latest example – following recent cases such as the Schalk Burger eye-gouging row and Justin Harrison’s drug-related suspension – of the disciplinary system letting the game down.

On that theme, how does Williams' crime compare to that of Burger and Harrison? And how does his 12-month ban rack up against the eight-week and eight-month suspensions handed down to his South African and Australian rivals respectively? None of these offences made for happy viewing or reading but the apparent premeditated nature of the Williams/Quins offence does cause great concern. However, it seems more than a little harsh on Williams to shoulder the responsibility to such a degree in light of the punishments handed out elsewhere.

If Williams was acting alone then why has the club been fined at all? If others were involved why have they not been punished? Even if it was just the club doctor or physiotherapist, why has no other individual been called to account?

The independent disciplinary committee rightly described this incident as, “a very serious offence and one that damaged the reputation of the tournament and of Rugby Union” but Harlequins will take their place in this season’ Heineken Cup all the same.

If they were guilty of tarnishing the reputation of the game and in particular the most-prized, respected and entertaining tournament in club rugby surely a more significant statement needed to be made? Have they not been found guilty of cheating? They should not be playing in next season's competition.

Harlequins and Williams have the right to appeal this case but the player may end up taking this one for the team. For a promising player such as the 25-year-old, a year on the sidelines will no doubt prove costly in terms of his international aspirations. And despite being cleared by the investigation, Quins boss Dean Richards is unlikely to escape unscathed from the long-running saga.

In light of recent high-profile cases, the International Rugby Board instigated a review into whether the scope of appeals should in the future extend to other appropriate parties, including the IRB itself, as a safeguard against dubious results from independent inquiries.

The IRB “works tirelessly with all 116 Member Unions and key stakeholders to ensure that the safety of players and the reputation of the Game is protected” and there is no doubt the this latest black mark, with Harlequins apparently flouting the laws of the game for their own personal gain, will not have been lost on the sport’s governing body.

	De Villiers has been urged to tone down his outspoken ways by his South African Rugby Union employers © Getty Images

I'm must admit I am not sure whether his performance review was scheduled for after the recent series with the British & Irish Lions - these things normally occur at the end of a season - but there was more than enough justification for a little chat with the outspoken Boks boss.

The flowery-speaking De Villiers has been no stranger to controversy since taking the Springboks' reins from Jake White following the side's triumph at Rugby World Cup 2007. Arguably that seed was sown by SA Rugby themselves with union president Oregan Hoskins admitting that, "the appointment was not entirely made for rugby reasons” in reference to the colour of his skin.

From that point on he has gobbled up the column inches with some amusing and bemusing sound bites such as these:

“I think I should walk away from this job and give it back to the whites.” - De Villiers reacts to allegations that he featured in a sex tape.

“If you want to run with the big dogs you’ve got to lift a leg.” - De Villiers talks up his side following their defeat to the All Blacks in Wellington during last year's Tri-Nations.

“If you look at the Bible and see how Joseph got out of the pit and ended up in the palace, but between the pit and the palace there was a moerse lot of kak.” - De Villiers explains away his side's form ahead of their defeat to New Zealand at Newlands during the 2008 Tri-Nations.

The pattern continued this year with the Lions tour offering him an even bigger stage from which to entertain and baffle.

"What I learned in South Africa is, if you take your car to a garage and the owner is black or a black man, and they mess it up, you never go back to that garage. If the owner is white, you say ag, sorry, they made a mistake and you go back again. This is how some people live their lives in this country." – De Villiers defends the presence of Ricky Januarie in his squad despite question marks about his form.

"I won't change my style, if I change my style I will change Peter de Villiers, and then I would have to tell God that he made a mistake when he made me." – De Villiers resorts to the third person under criticism for his outspoken nature.

"If we are going on like this, why don't we go to the nearest ballet shop, get some tutus and get a dancing shop going? There will be no eye-gouging, no tackling, no nothing and we will enjoy it." – De Villiers stokes the row following Schalk Burger’s eye-gouging of Lions wing Luke Fitzgerald.

The South African Rugby Union were reportedly pressured by the International Rugby Board to issue an apology for De Villiers’ initial outburst following the Burger-Fitzgerald incident but its sincerity was subsequently called into question as the Bok coach was soon drawn back into the row by the media.

Such was the furore that it over-shadowed the Springboks’ historic series triumph over the tourists which will have also infuriated his union bosses. As a result it was not surprising that they slapped him on the wrist at this week’s review.

"The assessment committee advised Peter to refrain from statements involving the Bible and to generally be more careful about what he says," Hoskins told local media.

"We explained where he could have used a different approach. One example was the statement about the mechanic when he tried to defend Ricky Januarie's selection. We made it clear the media wasn't there to fight with him and that they just report what they see and hear.”

This last point was highlighted in the wake of the second Test row - starting in the post-match press conference where De Villiers was immediately on the defensive as he was peppered by the British and Irish media. Perhaps his experiences with the South African media leave him cautious but with reports that he has shunned any media training you have little sympathy for him.

Although a little concerning, the religious themes that De Villiers favours are probably not the main concern for his employers. Biblical references are extremely common on the sporting stage be it T-shirts worn by the Confederations Cup-winning Brazil side or American golfer Stewart Cink thanking God for his recent Open Championship triumph. Faith has also long been a part of South African rugby.

It is the political dynamite he dishes up that causes sleepless nights with a country still wrestling with a troubled, race-divided past.

The timing of De Villiers’ dressing down, on the eve of a run of three home games in this year’s Tri-Nations, is also significant with Hoskins and co surely hoping for a trouble-free month.
Another key conclusion from this week’s meeting will see De Villiers speak in Afrikaans at press conferences and in interviews if he feels he can express himself better using a language more familiar to him. My South African colleagues have nothing but praise for the way he handles himself one-on-one but admit he is more at ease in Afrikaans.

De Villiers is currently blessed with a talented squad featuring many of those who shared in the recent Rugby World Cup glory and there is no doubt that the victory over the Lions gives him plenty of breathing space in the job. In fact his employers could not be happier with his coaching prowess although rumours remain that senior players are guiding the side.

But sources tell me that even a defeat in the recent series would not have hastened his departure partly due to the political bind the union have put themselves in - they have to be seen to give the country’s first black coach every opportunity to prove himself – and partly because of the lack of a potential replacement.

Time will tell if De Villiers changes his ways in light of this latest warning but let’s hope he doesn’t change completely. His forthright style is often refreshing in an otherwise bland, cliché-ridden world but if he could just think about what he is going to say before opening his mouth.

Quite simply eye-gouging is inexcusable. There is absolutely no room for it in the game and I just hope the International Rugby Board are true to their word when they say they are determined to eradicate it from the sport.

It is not a new problem, but we have seen several high-profile cases in the last couple of years that suggest it may be reaching alarming levels:
Dylan Hartley (Northampton) - 6 months ban
Neil Best (Northampton) - 18 weeks
Seru Rabeni (Leicester) - 14 weeks
Mauro Bergamasco (Italy) - 18 weeks
Marius Tincu (Perpignan) - 18 weeks
Olivier Azam (Gloucester) - 9 weeks
Alan Quinlan (Munster) - 12 weeks
Sergio Parisse (Italy) - 8 weeks

And, although SA Rugby insist he was found guilty of making contact with the ‘eye area' and not eye-gouging:
Schalk Burger (South Africa) - 8 weeks

"These acts have no place in a game that has at its core the pillars of fair play, respect and camaraderie," the IRB said in a statement this week after the latest high-profile incident and promised action.

The mind-set behind the act is just astonishing. Why go for a player's head at all let alone try to damage his eye-sight? That is why there is no defence for it. Players talk of the aim to physically intimidate the opponent but that is no justification for such a disgusting act. Rugby is a physical game and that element is part of its attraction but there is a line that should not be crossed.

Everyone from fans to officials appears to agree that eye-gouging is the most dangerous and heinous offence you can commit on the rugby field so it is about time it was punished accordingly.

The current sanction structure appears right – a two-year ban should be a sufficient deterrent – but the definitions within the regulations create grey areas that are being exploited. As a result the punishment rarely seems to fit the crime.

The maximum ban for the offence is two years but only one player has ever been handed such a punishment - Colomiers prop Richard Nones who was convicted without the aid of video evidence for gouging Pontypridd hooker Sven Cronk during a Heineken Cup tie 10 years ago.

Only one other ban of a year or more has been handed down – to North Harbour lock Troy Flavell in 1997 – and that was reduced to three weeks on appeal.

Yesterday, SA Rugby felt compelled to issue the findings of judicial officer Alan Hudson in the wake of the Burger incident in an attempt to defend the honour of their player.

As mentioned, the report concluded that Burger was guilty of ‘contact in the left eye area’ of Lions winger Luke Fitzgerald but not actual eye gouging. That blurring of what should be clear definitive lines will infuriate the sport's governing body and confuse the vast majority who saw the shocking incident. The judicial system needs to raise its game out of this mire and call these crimes for what they are.

The IRB obviously felt obliged to act this week, fearing irreparable damage to rugby's reputation. There is no doubt the headlines this week will have damaged the sport's attempts to boost grassroots playing numbers.

Lions centre Brian O'Driscoll made a very telling point on the matter which was reported elsewhere on this site. "Kids or parents watching an interview like that, questioning whether they should have their kid play rugby or soccer, that's their decision made right there," he said.

The IRB are also pushing hard for re-inclusion in the Olmypics and such incidents will not sit well with the IOC as they consider rugby’s bid to join the Games’ programme.

The game needs to rid itself of this nasty element and without delay. That means hefty bans and rigid regulations that will protect the game and those who play it.

And so England and Japan are now hot favourites to be awarded the 2015 and 2019 Rugby World Cups respectively. Their bids have received the backing of tournament organisers Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) although the final decision rests with the IRB Council at their meeting in Dublin on July 28.

The RWCL Board decided that England and Japan would, "provide the best balanced combination of hosts for the continued world-wide development of the Game." For that read - a tournament in England will allow us to make huge profits that will reduce the risk factor involved in taking the tournament to the Far East for the first time.

It seems highly unlikely that the IRB Council will go against the findings of RWCL unless some new information was to come to light - plus IRB chairman Bernard Lapasset heads up both organisations. And why create such a recommendation element to the tender process if it was not to make sure that the IRB Council made the 'right' decision for the sport?

But have RWCL got it right? England perhaps deserve the right to stage the tournament again - they last played host to the world's best in 1991 and of course claimed the sport's biggest prize in 2003. It also appears to make sense commercially although the IRB are assured of the majority of their return in the form of the hefty guarantees that each tournament bidder had to agree to meet (£80m for 2015 and £96m for 2019).

Interestingly enough, it is pleasing to see that the bottom line was not the over-riding factor in the bidding process. South Africa, who submitted a bid for both tournaments, were the only nation to offer a minimum guarantee in excess of the IRB's requirements.

It was a relief to see Japan get the significant RWCL backing for the 2019 tournament. It is widely thought that they were hard done by in the last bidding process that saw the 2011 tournament handed to New Zealand and if the IRB are serious about developing the game they must take the tournament to a non-traditional rugby nation. The first Rugby World Cup in Asia really is an exciting prospect.

In addition to South Africa, the other apparent loser following the announcement of RWCL's recommendations is Italy who also submitted a bid for both tournaments. I am sure their time will come and am confident that their passion for the sport would ensure a superb showpiece. However, they will have to wait until 2023 at the earliest.