Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Draft Italian government decree suggests plug will be pulled on Italy-England

(Photo by Laurence Griffiths/Getty Images)

Italy’s Guinness Six Nations match versus England on March 14 is likely to be postponed if a draft Italian government decree drawn up open Wednesday is put into action.

ADVERTISEMENT

Six Nations officials declared on Monday that all remaining matches in the championship were going ahead as planned except for the already postponed meeting of Ireland versus Italy in Dublin which had been fixed for next Saturday in Dublin. 

However, with the threat of the coronavirus spread still not under control, the Azzurri’s round five clash with the English in Rome is now set to fall by the wayside. 

The Guardian’s rolling live blog on the global spread of the coronavirus had reported that a decree, which has been seen by the Reuters news agency, will order “the suspension of events of any nature… that entail the concentration of people and do not allow for a safety distance of at least one metre (yard) to be respected.”

It claimed that Italy’s government was set to close cinemas and theatres and ban public events across the whole country to try to contain the coronavirus outbreak. It also told Italians to avoid hugging and shaking hands to prevent as much as possible a further spread of the potentially deadly illness which has been mainly concentrated in the country’s northern regions.

(Continue reading below…)

Gallagher Premiership could be set for Guinness Six Nations player release standoff

Video Spacer

If the Italy-England match is unable to go ahead as planned in front of an attendance in excess of 50,000 at Stadio Olimpico, rugby’s authorities might follow the lead of Italian football authorities who are said to considering playing Serie A matches behind closed doors.  

ADVERTISEMENT

Facing a backlog of fixtures as the virus spreads, the head of the Italian FA suggested playing matches without crowds was an increasing likelihood. “We are heading towards that decision,” Vincenzo Spadafora told reporters when asked if the government was thinking of barring fans. “We will continue all activities and so will the league, but we will respect public health.”

WATCH: RugbyPass Rugby Explorer takes a trek through Italian rugby, stopping off in Rome and Treviso

Video Spacer

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Pacific Four Series 2024 | Canada vs USA

Japan Rugby League One | Verblitz v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Fresh Starts | Episode 2 | Sam Whitelock

Royal Navy Men v Royal Air Force Men | Full Match Replay

Royal Navy Women v Royal Air Force Women | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
Jon 8 hours ago
The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific

I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.

24 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE Makazole Mapimpi: 'My life is somewhere I never thought it would be.' Makazole Mapimpi: 'My life is somewhere I never thought it would be.'
Search