2003 World Cup: Hopes of a resolution to the rift between Australia and New Zealand have increased marginally in light of the International Board's (IB) announcement that it had deferred a decision on the 2003 Rugby World Cup (RWC) by 24 hours until tomorrow.

This delay has heightened hopes among the New Zealand contingent in Dublin this week that they might yet be reinstated as co-hosts, although the likelihood remains that Australia's go-it-alone bid, recommended by the RWC board of directors, will be ratified by the full 21-man International Board council.

It could also be that the IB are guarding against possible legal action from the New Zealand union should their decision be deemed as too hasty. This may also explain why the game's ruling body are giving little away.

Indeed, despite the huge importance of their deliberations this week, remarkably they still intend to announce their decision by dint of a prepared statement, with no press conference planned to explain their actions.

Both the Australian and New Zealand delegations put forward their cases yesterday, and in the heel of the hunt it is hard to imagine the various IB delegates - Ireland's are Noel Murphy and Syd Millar - going against the advice of the RWC board or the IB chairman Vernon Pugh, whose recommendation is that the competition be held exclusively in Australia.

In this, the IB would also be favouring the financially more profitable proposal given Australia's bigger stadiums and population size, even if the general public in New Zealand would be far more supportive of a rugby union World Cup and more likely to present the tournament in a better light.

Despite red herrings, such as New Zealand's NPC finals overlapping with the World Cup by two weeks, and supposed disputes over the draft proposals for the actual draw, the main bones of contention remain RWC's demands for "clean' stadiums and New Zealand's need for financial backing from the Australian union to offset their potential loss of revenue for co-hosting the tournament.

New Zealand now claim that they can provide "clean" stadiums free of advertising and with open corporate boxes. However, while there's some sympathy for New Zealand's plight and what direction the game might take if they are removed from the World Cup equation, it's also felt that they've been outmanoeuvred by their Australian counterparts.

Most of all, the personalised verbal attack by the New Zealand RU chairman Murray McCaw on Pugh is seen as a political faux pas, despite his subsequent apologies in public and in private.

Nevertheless, a decision to make Australia sole hosts of the World Cup would have serious implications for the game, especially in the Southern Hemisphere.

The wounds inflicted between Australian and New Zealand rugby would fester for some time to come, coming as it does so soon after the latter's decision to block the planned expansion of the Super 12 to a Super 14, with an additional franchise apiece for Australia and South Africa.

As has been pointed out by Ross Turnbull, the former Australian chairman of the IB in an impassioned campaign to reunite Australia and New Zealand as joint hosts of the World Cup, no country has been as supportive of Australia in its darker days than their Tasman neighbours.

This was most obvious when New Zealand granted Australia the financial lifeblood of annual Test matches in the 1970s.

Already this is a source of huge debate back in New Zealand, where Australian rugby is being demonised, and although some of the flak may soon be redirected toward New Zealand officials in the event of the World Cup going exclusively to Australia, it's doubtful whether such a neighbourly helping hand will be extended again for a long time.