RugbyRebels

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Apart from then creating short turn around times for QF matches.

Is that worse than not staging matches at all and Scotland going home without a chance to qualify?

They’ve had a chance to qualify.

I doubt you’d be so sanguine if England were in this position. If you think this situation is even slightly fair on Scotland you are deluded. Even if you are that deluded, I’m still not sure why we can’t postpone until Monday.

Oakboy wrote:I take the view that if all 8 QF places are not properly decided by on-field competitive results, the QFs should not proceed. Play all the matches or call the RWC off. If the competition proceeds on 'non-result' points-sharing it has no credibility.

I wouldn't go that far but I do think that it puts a dampner on a tournament I have loved so far (and I am currently assuming the Scotland match will go ahead).

I'm really disappointed that the England v France match is off, but have just realised that we'll meet in the final. Perfect!

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Is that worse than not staging matches at all and Scotland going home without a chance to qualify?

They’ve had a chance to qualify.

I doubt you’d be so sanguine if England were in this position. If you think this situation is even slightly fair on Scotland you are deluded. Even if you are that deluded, I’m still not sure why we can’t postpone until Monday.

Well I’d be kind of upset that we’d lost to, say, Argentina to our us in a must win position for starters.

Then IF the games on Sunday are also cancelled then might that also affect Monday? What potential damage will it cause? What transport will be available? What about safety? Do we then move to Tuesday? Or Wednesday? Will the players get any training time?

It’s a proper shame if it happens, but it is a bloody mahoosive typhoon.

fivepointer wrote:What would happen if a SF or the final had to be called of due to the weather?

Toss of a coin to decide the winner, or would the game be moved to another venue or played 24 or 48 hours later?

I dont doubt the organisers are in a difficult spot, but surely given the real possibility of weather disruption, some thought should have been given to playing games on reserve days and possibly at alternative venues.

There is a set protocol around the final- two day window, then some criteria for who wins (most tries in there somewhere, which is BS, esp if pool games have been cancelled).

Just disappointed not to be watching England this weekend to be honest. A shame.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
They’ve had a chance to qualify.

I doubt you’d be so sanguine if England were in this position. If you think this situation is even slightly fair on Scotland you are deluded. Even if you are that deluded, I’m still not sure why we can’t postpone until Monday.

Well I’d be kind of upset that we’d lost to, say, Argentina to our us in a must win position for starters.

Then IF the games on Sunday are also cancelled then might that also affect Monday? What potential damage will it cause? What transport will be available? What about safety? Do we then move to Tuesday? Or Wednesday? Will the players get any training time?

It’s a proper shame if it happens, but it is a bloody mahoosive typhoon.

Jap v Scot is the last pool match. Moving games to Monday wouldn’t cause a problem as far as scheduling goes. It’s also Japan, dealing with this sort of sh!t is their forte! Like I say, cancelling games will have been a last resort. It’s not ideal and I’m not looking to overly criticise but a two/one day delay seems, on the face of it, a possible solution.

Banquo wrote:

fivepointer wrote:What would happen if a SF or the final had to be called of due to the weather?

Toss of a coin to decide the winner, or would the game be moved to another venue or played 24 or 48 hours later?

I dont doubt the organisers are in a difficult spot, but surely given the real possibility of weather disruption, some thought should have been given to playing games on reserve days and possibly at alternative venues.

There is a set protocol around the final- two day window, then some criteria for who wins (most tries in there somewhere, which is BS, esp if pool games have been cancelled).

I think all knockout games have a cast iron backup plan. The logistics for that - a small number of matches across two days in any week - would be so much easier than, as EP says, pre-planning a plan b for the knockout games.

Let’s be honest, the most upsetting thing is that the Daily Mail got the scoop again.

Latest photo from World Rugby HQ:

I really don't think it's an advantage to have the extra week of rest.
we "know" from the Premiership in England that teams used to target 2nd place in the league, to avoid having that rest weekend and losing all momentum when it came to the final - which is why they extended the SFs from 3 to 4 teams.
We worry about teams being undercooked getting to the KO stages; with a built up of intensity for the last 1-2 pool matches being the ideal.

England (for example) were really targetting the first 2 pool matches to try out combinations; with the last 2 being that build up of intensity to hit the ground running come the QFs. All intensity was robbed from us against Argentina by Lavanini; whilst there's no match at all against France.
It looks to me like Wales are arriving at the QFs in the best shape in terms of preparations. They've beaten the Aussies; had a little rest; and then a huge test physically and psychologically, against Fiji. England have probably had the worse preparation from the pools.

Which Tyler wrote:I really don't think it's an advantage to have the extra week of rest.
we "know" from the Premiership in England that teams used to target 2nd place in the league, to avoid having that rest weekend and losing all momentum when it came to the final - which is why they extended the SFs from 3 to 4 teams.
We worry about teams being undercooked getting to the KO stages; with a built up of intensity for the last 1-2 pool matches being the ideal.

England (for example) were really targetting the first 2 pool matches to try out combinations; with the last 2 being that build up of intensity to hit the ground running come the QFs. All intensity was robbed from us against Argentina by Lavanini; whilst there's no match at all against France.
It looks to me like Wales are arriving at the QFs in the best shape in terms of preparations. They've beaten the Aussies; had a little rest; and then a huge test physically and psychologically, against Fiji. England have probably had the worse preparation from the pools.

It also means Mako, Nowell and Slade go into the knockout stages with very little game time.

Which Tyler wrote:I really don't think it's an advantage to have the extra week of rest.
we "know" from the Premiership in England that teams used to target 2nd place in the league, to avoid having that rest weekend and losing all momentum when it came to the final - which is why they extended the SFs from 3 to 4 teams.
We worry about teams being undercooked getting to the KO stages; with a built up of intensity for the last 1-2 pool matches being the ideal.

England (for example) were really targetting the first 2 pool matches to try out combinations; with the last 2 being that build up of intensity to hit the ground running come the QFs. All intensity was robbed from us against Argentina by Lavanini; whilst there's no match at all against France.
It looks to me like Wales are arriving at the QFs in the best shape in terms of preparations. They've beaten the Aussies; had a little rest; and then a huge test physically and psychologically, against Fiji. England have probably had the worse preparation from the pools.

Surely NZ...

SA first up, then a handful of gradually easier games before the last one is rained off.

Stom wrote:Surely NZ...

SA first up, then a handful of gradually easier games before the last one is rained off.

It's a good option - though I'd argue that they were prepared from the start to have their tough match first up, then a succession of relatively easy ones.
They've actually been tested in this world cup - we haven't yet.

Even if this is unavoidable (which seems a tenuous argument to me, as they knew the season), it seriously calls into question the legitimacy of the tournament. It's disastrous for World Cup rugby.

Hooky wrote:Even if this is unavoidable (which seems a tenuous argument to me, as they knew the season), it seriously calls into question the legitimacy of the tournament. It's disastrous for World Cup rugby.

Just out of interest is it likely to affect the overall result?

We dont know. The QF line up may have been very different had the games been played.

It plainly is far more desirable for all the pool games to be completed. Losing games, even through extreme weather interventions, does the credibility of the tournament no good and doesnt paint our game in the best possible light.

I understand that all knock out games have fall back dates for completion, so its reasonable to ask why something couldnt be arranged for these games.

Its not as if Japan will be a rugby free country over the weekend.

Farcical.

fivepointer wrote:We dont know. The QF line up may have been very different had the games been played.

It plainly is far more desirable for all the pool games to be completed. Losing games, even through extreme weather interventions, does the credibility of the tournament no good and doesnt paint our game in the best possible light.

I understand that all knock out games have fall back dates for completion, so its reasonable to ask why something couldnt be arranged for these games.

Its not as if Japan will be a rugby free country over the weekend.

Yes, the big point is that all games have to be played for the competition to be fair. It is that simple. Thers is no point in whingeing about lesser countries not getting a fair crack of the whip in financial and fixture terms if the main prestige event is run in such a way that their best interests are dismissed on the basis that it would not affect the final result. That is sporting arrogance of monumental proportions. It is basically corrupt.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Hooky wrote:Even if this is unavoidable (which seems a tenuous argument to me, as they knew the season), it seriously calls into question the legitimacy of the tournament. It's disastrous for World Cup rugby.

Just out of interest is it likely to affect the overall result?

No, but that's irrelevant to credibility and respect

Oakboy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:We dont know. The QF line up may have been very different had the games been played.

It plainly is far more desirable for all the pool games to be completed. Losing games, even through extreme weather interventions, does the credibility of the tournament no good and doesnt paint our game in the best possible light.

I understand that all knock out games have fall back dates for completion, so its reasonable to ask why something couldnt be arranged for these games.

Its not as if Japan will be a rugby free country over the weekend.

Yes, the big point is that all games have to be played for the competition to be fair. It is that simple. Thers is no point in whingeing about lesser countries not getting a fair crack of the whip in financial and fixture terms if the main prestige event is run in such a way that their best interests are dismissed on the basis that it would not affect the final result. That is sporting arrogance of monumental proportions. It is basically corrupt.

Yep. To be honest I think credibility and validity for this world cup has gone

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Hooky wrote:Even if this is unavoidable (which seems a tenuous argument to me, as they knew the season), it seriously calls into question the legitimacy of the tournament. It's disastrous for World Cup rugby.

Just out of interest is it likely to affect the overall result?

A] Yes - even if it doesn't affect the overall result.
B] It may well affectd the overall result. If England, France and New Zealand all arrived undercooked at the QFs, and all get knocked out there due to fit, firing and tempered opposition - it affects the overall result. The precise same logic works if they all win; or if any combination of them wins and loses; they still arrive at the QF stage with differing levels of preparation and preparedness probably to their disadvantage in the QFs, and their advantage in the SFs.

Is there even any point inviting Russia, Namibia, Canada, USA, Samoa, Italy, Tonga? There aren’t going to affect the final result. Tbh, we might as well have had Arg and France playoff for one QF spot and Ire, Japan and Scotland playoff for two QF spots and put NZ, SA, Eng, Wales and Oz straight through to the QF. In fact, even that seems superfluous. Champ Rugby winner v 6N runner up and 6N winner v Champ Rugby runner up for the semis.

Mellsblue wrote:Is there even any point inviting Russia, Namibia, Canada, USA, Samoa, Italy, Tonga? There aren’t going to affect the final result. Tbh, we might as well have had Arg and France playoff for one QF spot and Ire, Japan and Scotland playoff for two QF spots and put NZ, SA, Eng, Wales and Oz straight through to the QF. In fact, even that seems superfluous. Champ Rugby winner v 6N runner up and 6N winner v Champ Rugby runner up for the semis.

What's the pointnin that? NZ have spent more time at the top of the rankings than anyone else in the last 4 years, just five them the cup

Occurs to me that they could have got the Eng-Fra and NZ-Ita games played today. All teams have had suitable rest, are in town already along with all officials and majority of fans.

Sco-Jap game more difficult due to Scotland not having had enough rest days.