As the Six Nations Championship progresses a stage further tomorrow when France meet Wales in Paris and Scotland take on Italy at Murrayfield, Ireland must of necessity stand idly by until the end of April. Nor is involvement at that stage by any means certain. But it will be good to get the club and schools scene back on track.
The longer the postponement of matches at club and representative levels persists, the greater the difficulties in getting the programmes completed. Additionally, the financial implications are immense.
As the uncertainty continues in the representative arena, it is very difficult to make concerted decisions. Almost on a daily basis there seems to be the possibility of a step forward and then comes further anxiety. IRFU president Eddie Coleman said: "It is an extremely difficult situation. We are faced with a position of what, where and when."
Meanwhile, on the proposal that the Ireland side play in South Africa in preparation for their matches in the Six Nations Championship - if they go ahead - Coleman said: "If we did not go and the matches in the Six Nations series take place, then we have a problem. We have a responsibility to the national team to make sure that the players get every opportunity to prepare as well as possible within the constraints under which we must operate." The new dates for the three outstanding matches (April 29th, May 5th and May 12th) involving Ireland have been announced by the Six Nations Committee. But those of course are dependent on the containment of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain. It is all part of the uncertainty which makes it very difficult to make definite plans.
The Chief Executive of the English Rugby Football Union Francis Baron has rejected suggestions that the championship should be completed without Ireland. He said he believes it essential for the welfare of the game in the northern hemisphere that the championship be completed, if possible, before the Lions tour. He also suggested that matches might be played at neutral venues. Bringing that to pass would present its own problems.
In the given circumstances venues in England, Scotland and Wales are ruled out. So too France in view of recent events there. The only alternative seems to be Rome and that would scarcely be ideal from any perspective.
But what do we get from the owner of Northampton, Keith Barwell? A call for Ireland's summary dismissal from the series. "Ireland should be made to pay for their refusal to play matches because of the foot-and-mouth crisis. The fact is that the Irish have called off the matches. If they cannot fulfil the fixtures it should be just a five nations series."
Eddie Coleman's response was: "All that kind of comment does is underline his total lack of awareness of the position that exists. But others have shown support and appreciation of the position." Does Barwell realise that it is because of grave necessity that Ireland had to call for the postponement of matches in unforseen circumstances? Furthermore, it is because of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain that the problems arose.
Anyone who really cares for the game surely wants to see the championship completed. Of course the situation is inconvenient for all the countries, but the greatest level of inconvenience has been in this country. It is not as if Ireland has anything to gain - in fact there is much to be lost from the postponements and disruption.
I find Barwell's attitude all too typical of the kind of statements that emanate with monotonous regularity from some club owners in England. Surely the attitude should be let us do everything possible to save the Six Nations Championship, not just dismiss a country because of problems not of their making. The difficulties are of a major dimension, internationally and domestically. That does not apply in England. Even in the crisis they want the European Cup final switched so as not to disrupt their Premiership play-offs on the weekend of May 5-6th - the weekend now scheduled for the Ireland-England match.
If Francis Baron's suggestion that matches be played at neutral venues is scarcely realistic, at least he showed an awareness of the problems and a desire to see the series completed. What credibility would the championship have if a country that has played two and won two matches in the series takes no further part? There are also the very important considerations of gate receipts. We are talking about every match bringing in millions of pounds. Then there are sponsorship and broadcasting rights.
There has also been a suggestion from England that the championship would benefit from a system of promotion and relegation. Brian Baister, chairman of the English management committee, believes it would benefit from the inclusion of such as Holland and Spain. By all means every incentive should be given to emerging rugby nations, but there is no evidence that Holland or Spain are anyway near ready to come into the series and offer serious opposition to the other nations.
The Italians' attitude to that proposal should be interesting bearing in mind approach adopted in Twickenham for quite some time about the inclusion of the Italians in the championship.
In the interim we can at least look forward to watching the two championship matches tomorrow on television. Let us be grateful for some small mercies.
