RugbyRebels

If we end up playing the final on a rock, paper, scissors basis does Farrell know what all those are?

Timbo wrote: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.

How, players will have been through physical training in a normal test cycle and then suddenly they get flipped into a game day without a 3 day prep? I'd be furious if that happened to us, but I'm okay if some joker wants to put another team through that nonsense.

You'd have had to make the decision to play early many days back before it was known where the typhoon would hit and how hard it'd it

Digby wrote:If we end up playing the final on a rock, paper, scissors basis does Farrell know what all those are?

I think you’ll find that ice trumps all three.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:If we end up playing the final on a rock, paper, scissors basis does Farrell know what all those are?

I think you’ll find that ice trumps all three.

Fore sure he's cold as ice and willing to sacrifice, but tbh I've seen it before, someday he'll pay the price

Digby wrote:

Timbo wrote: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.

How, players will have been through physical training in a normal test cycle and then suddenly they get flipped into a game day without a 3 day prep? I'd be furious if that happened to us, but I'm okay if some joker wants to put another team through that nonsense.

You'd have had to make the decision to play early many days back before it was known where the typhoon would hit and how hard it'd it

How? You turn up and play a game of rugby, that’s how.

As Eddie Jones has said for 4 years; if you want to win a World Cup you need to be prepared for anything. And yes, that includes a disrupted training cycle.

Timbo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Timbo wrote: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.

How, players will have been through physical training in a normal test cycle and then suddenly they get flipped into a game day without a 3 day prep? I'd be furious if that happened to us, but I'm okay if some joker wants to put another team through that nonsense.

You'd have had to make the decision to play early many days back before it was known where the typhoon would hit and how hard it'd it

How? You turn up and play a game of rugby, that’s how.

As Eddie Jones has said for 4 years; if you want to win a World Cup you need to be prepared for anything. And yes, that includes a disrupted training cycle.

I've got no interest in upping our chances of injury to help some sides that only have themselves to blame. I'd also want a word if I was insuring the teams you think can just play at the drop of a hat

Digby wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Digby wrote:
How, players will have been through physical training in a normal test cycle and then suddenly they get flipped into a game day without a 3 day prep? I'd be furious if that happened to us, but I'm okay if some joker wants to put another team through that nonsense.

You'd have had to make the decision to play early many days back before it was known where the typhoon would hit and how hard it'd it

How? You turn up and play a game of rugby, that’s how.

As Eddie Jones has said for 4 years; if you want to win a World Cup you need to be prepared for anything. And yes, that includes a disrupted training cycle.

I've got no interest in upping our chances of injury to help some sides that only have themselves to blame. I'd also want a word if I was insuring the teams you think can just play at the drop of a hat

I don’t think either of those points are particularly relevant.
I was talking about what would be better for the tournament, not England.
And insurance companies aren’t going to step in cos the lads had a tough training day shortly before a big test (I mean, really?!). Teams do that all the time when they’re in a conditioning phase, particularly during World Cup warm ups and AI’s.

These players are well conditioned and will recover quickly from a heavy training load. This is a World Cup, and if they’d brought the games forward by 24 or 48 hours then the teams would just have to get on with it.

Fucking gutted about this for a few reasons...

First off, Saturday is my birthday and I was looking forward to a cooked breakfast whilst watching us play a match where we finally click. Not champagne rugby, but a proper test with two good teams of 15 players going toe to toe, and England playing measured and accurate rugby and playing themselves into great form for the quarters.

Secondly, you need minutes on the pitch to ensure the team keeps focus. We've had easy games so far...it hasn't been perfect, but it has been easy. France would've offered a test and are more than good enough to beat us, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

Now factor in the likelihood of Farrell, Youngs having poor games against France. Would this likely see a change in the starting XV against Oz? We'll never know, but we can be sure both will start in the quarters based on some sub-par performances from both. In Farrell's defence, he has had a couple of hefty hits to the noggin, but has that been managed properly?

I can't even begin to appreciate the logistics involved with postponing, or switching venue in a RWC group match, but surely it's possible to delay the match by one day? Gotta feel for the fans that have travelled and paid to watch this match. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect World Rugby to give the go ahead to the originally planned fixture as there's a potentially deadly and destructive typhoon heading that way, but I'm a bit gutted alternative plans could not be put in place.

Still gonna have a cooked breakfast, so fuck you Hagibis, you ain't ruining that aspect of my birthday too!

I've seen it suggested that NZ are the only team facing cancellation that was refusing to be flexible - England and France had already made arrangements to be in Oita (?) and happy to play there, Italy and Scotland happy to play 24 hours early or 24 hours late, or in a different venue with only their match-day 23 and skeleton support staff; Japan deeply embarrassed and willing to do just about anything to see the match taking place. NZ saying "the arrangements are the arrangements, and we're not willing to move day or location". Let's face it - no skin off their nose, as a cancellation still sees them through as winners of the pool.
I've also seen it suggested that, in that case, if NZ really feel that strongly about it, then one option would be that they forfeit the match, going down as a 4-0 or 4-1 tournie-points - meaning that they'd still qualify, but as 2nd in the group. They preferred to cancel; which is the default position if all parties couldn't agree.


I have no way of knowing if these suggestions are accurate, or if it really was the TV companies refusing to allow play on another day or elsewhere with 48 hours notice; or anything else. About the only thing we can say conclusively is that there was no unanimous decision, and therefore we got the worst possible outcome for all parties involved (no Brexit analogies please - at least here NZ gets their way)

Timbo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Timbo wrote:
How? You turn up and play a game of rugby, that’s how.

As Eddie Jones has said for 4 years; if you want to win a World Cup you need to be prepared for anything. And yes, that includes a disrupted training cycle.

I've got no interest in upping our chances of injury to help some sides that only have themselves to blame. I'd also want a word if I was insuring the teams you think can just play at the drop of a hat

I don’t think either of those points are particularly relevant.
I was talking about what would be better for the tournament, not England.
And insurance companies aren’t going to step in cos the lads had a tough training day shortly before a big test (I mean, really?!). Teams do that all the time when they’re in a conditioning phase, particularly during World Cup warm ups and AI’s.

These players are well conditioned and will recover quickly from a heavy training load. This is a World Cup, and if they’d brought the games forward by 24 or 48 hours then the teams would just have to get on with it.

If I was England I'd tell them to fecking do one with any request even close to that. I'd be willing to talk about bringing a game forwards, but not at 24-48 hours notice when we've probably just had our full on training for the week. The players are no conditioned to go from Tuesday training into a match 2 days later, and just 5 days from the last match. You'd have to know about the 5 day interval before the Argentina game to plan for it, and there is a difference to being able to plan for it to having it dropped in your lap.

Frankly either way the tournament has a problem, it's farcical not having some matches, it's farcical suddenly bringing forward matches. It is a shame there's a typhoon, but it is what it is

I think the question has to be asked, "If the NZ/Italy points situation was the other way around would the game have been cancelled?"

I think England’s ability to decamp at short notice, others’ offers to play elsewhere with a minimum number of staff and Japan’s willingness to move heaven and earth proves matches could’ve been staged elsewhere. It might’ve been on a university campus with virtually no fans and one TV camera sat on scaffold but it could’ve been done. It might’ve even been a PR win with players mingling with students and a few hardy fans.
By the sounds of things, NZ have had their way. On The Times podcast it was said that WR said that all teams must be treated equally, ie as NZ refused to countenance a change to the schedule even a match between two unions willing to do so WR would not allow it.

On the upside we are saved from the strains of Swing Low

I don't blame NZ if the solution was to curtail the gap leading into a possible quarter-final. But NZ in acting in such fashion should expect the same helping hand to be extended their way in future should they feel the need arises

p/d wrote:On the upside we are saved from the strains of Swing Low

It should be illegal unless full verses are being sung

This is pretty damning, if true. We could’ve played the games but decided not to for PR reasons:

On the subject of possibly bringing the match forward, it's the same for both fekking teams.

Oakboy wrote:I think the question has to be asked, "If the NZ/Italy points situation was the other way around would the game have been cancelled?"

Parisse said as much. It's them i'm most sad for. We can remember 2019 as the year they were prevented from knocking nz out.

Oakboy wrote:I think the question has to be asked, "If the NZ/Italy points situation was the other way around would the game have been cancelled?"

Likewise if my aunt had a cock would she be my uncle?

Mr Mwenda wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I think the question has to be asked, "If the NZ/Italy points situation was the other way around would the game have been cancelled?"

Parisse said as much. It's them i'm most sad for. We can remember 2019 as the year they were prevented from knocking nz out.

I saw a brilliant one yesterday where some cockend was shouting about how Italy will go out without a chance! A chance that would require them to beat NZ by 50+ points!

And of course the big talking point is the Scotland game, which hadn’t actually been cancelled.

Wrong, sorry, looked at updated pool tables that include the draw, ignore me.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I think the question has to be asked, "If the NZ/Italy points situation was the other way around would the game have been cancelled?"

Likewise if my aunt had a cock would she be my uncle?

I feel like I’m just going through everything you post and disagreeing with it at the moment, sorry about that, but that isn’t remotely equivalent. The whole argument is that every team/fixture must get the same treatment in order for it to be fair.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I think the question has to be asked, "If the NZ/Italy points situation was the other way around would the game have been cancelled?"

Likewise if my aunt had a cock would she be my uncle?

I feel like I’m just going through everything you post and disagreeing with it at the moment, sorry about that, but that isn’t remotely equivalent. The whole argument is that every team/fixture must get the same treatment in order for it to be fair.

No worries Mikey. The point here is simply that the 'question' Oakboy suggests isn't relevant as it isn't what has happened, thus could never be answered.
I would totally agree that in the alternative circumstances the same rule / approach should apply, but we'll never know and thus the questions is pointless.

Mellsblue wrote:This is pretty damning, if true. We could’ve played the games but decided not to for PR reasons:

There are valid concerns on both sides when deciding what to do next. There isn't a good outcome.

The various unions may want to give thought to having more flexibility in future, but need to do so in discussions with stakeholders, and aware they might be building in extra costs which could limit the number of nations who'd bid to host the WC, and if you do that the bigger nations will not need to bid as much to gain the rights to host

I don't have a problem myself with the tournament rules that were known before the tournament being applied. Though it is suboptimal

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:
Likewise if my aunt had a cock would she be my uncle?

I feel like I’m just going through everything you post and disagreeing with it at the moment, sorry about that, but that isn’t remotely equivalent. The whole argument is that every team/fixture must get the same treatment in order for it to be fair.

No worries Mikey. The point here is simply that the 'question' Oakboy suggests isn't relevant as it isn't what has happened, thus could never be answered.
I would totally agree that in the alternative circumstances the same rule / approach should apply, but we'll never know and thus the questions is pointless.

I don't think the question is pointless for the simple reason that decisions to cancel have only been taken because the likes of NZ do not get the rough cut. Thus, the decisions are made for the wrong reasons and may be the wrong decisions.