Rugby World Cup 2015 - Slow torture: Lancaster forced to wait for judgment

England's coach Stuart Lancaster observes his players warm-up before the Rugby World Cup Pool A match between England and Australia. Photo / AP.

Stuart Lancaster faces an agonising month of uncertainty before learning whether he will hang on to his post as England head coach - unless he chooses to resign first.

It is understood that the RFU are preparing to announce details in the next three days of their post-World Cup review process, but the findings are unlikely to be delivered until long after the tournament ends. The union's management board are due to receive an official report at their next scheduled board meeting on November 17, before the recommendations are formally ratified and acted upon.

The review will be overseen by RFU chief executive Ian Ritchie, who is expected to seek feedback from leading figures from within the governing body, such as professional rugby director Rob Andrew, chairman Bill Beaumont and president Jason Leonard. Initial indications are that Ritchie will be open to receiving independent, external views, but these may be sought on an informal basis.

At this stage, it appears that the make-up of any review panel could be the subject of considerable secrecy. While details of in-house participants may be divulged, others from outside the union who are asked to take part will have their identities protected if they are uneasy about being associated with a post-mortem with potentially grave and profound consequences.

The terms of the review will be relatively narrow, focusing predominantly on the senior England squad in terms of management, selection, preparation, performance and overall strategy. The implication is that Ritchie's own decision-making is unlikely to come under scrutiny - despite the contentious decision to award Lancaster and his assistants six-year contract extensions - and Andrew's position is also beyond the boundaries of the process.

When Lancaster was installed as the full-time successor to Martin Johnson in the spring of 2012, after a successful stint as interim head coach, his appointment was ratified by a panel of experts. Ritchie, having recently arrived from the All-England Lawn Tennis Club, employed Sir Ian McGeechan, Conor O'Shea, Richard Hill and Andrew as his four wise men to provide rugby guidance before making the crucial decision. Yet, despite his input at the time, Andrew is set to be heavily involved in deciding whether the choice of Lancaster was a mistake or not.

England's players expect to be consulted as part of the review and while the format for that consultation is still being finalised, views from within the squad are set to be presented by senior players.

Lancaster has conceded that one of the issues which is bound to come under scrutiny within the review process is the RFU edict against picking players for England who are based outside the country. A concerted campaign to highlight the case of Toulon flanker Steffon Armitage has kept the matter in the spotlight.

James Haskell broke the English mould by spending time in exile, in France, Japan and New Zealand. The Wasps captain - who was among the host nation's delegation at Buckingham Palace yesterday for a reception with the royal family - would vouch for the benefits of a stint abroad.

Despite being mindful of the union's stance on the matter, he said: 'I would recommend any young players with that opportunity to play abroad, to play in Super 15, or in Europe. Development-wise it's great. The Premiership is so attritional because we have relegation and it's so physical, a lot of young players don't get opportunities.

'If you have an England career you have to think about it very carefully, but if you feel you can miss out on England for a while and come back a better player and fight your cause then all power to you.

'I was lucky that I did it at a time when that rule wasn't in place, so I maximised the opportunity to play abroad. When I went, initially everyone was writing me off, saying, "It's a terrible decision, you shouldn't go". Luckily, I didn't listen and I gained a lot of experience.

'The rights and wrong of the rules are not for me to decide, but the people who do go abroad now are fully aware of what they are getting themselves into.'

-DAILY MAIL