RWC 2019 cancellations

[Gracie]

It seems, from the outside looking in, that WR have created a problem for themselves that will cast an enduring shadow over the tournament. The risk of a typhoon (regardless of scale) was quite obvious and the contingencies do not seem to have been well thought through. Moving games was surely the best sporting option and was surely possible given the well-established forecasts (when the Thomas Cook business collapsed recently many thousands or tourists worldwide were brought home largely seamelessly), so the logistics in Japan even if it was just or teams/officials was surely feasible) and/or building in time for re-scheduling as happens in tennis. It's a sad situation.

Incidently, what happens from the knockout stages onwards in a similar scenario and has a precedent been set?

 

[Camquin]

Rules here: https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/tournament-rules

If no more play is possible - Japan would beat South Africa in the Quarter final on pool points and Wales in the semi-fianl (points difference) where they would lose to England.

In which case let the Typhoon blow.

 

[L'irlandais]

The reason the rules differ (knockout stages having 48 hour reschedule written in) is that some of the Pool stage games had ridiculously short 3 or 4 day turnaround. If you advance a 3 day turnaround by 48 hours that team must play International rugby of the first fixture, relocate overnight and get up the following day to play a second game. That obviously was unworkable.

Players need a six-day turnaround. Minimum.
But that is not the case at RWC 2019.
The US Eagles have been dealt a horrible hand with only 14 rest days – the least alongside South Africa and Canada – while having to trek a total of 2,250km, starting with Kobe to Fukuoka in the five days between playing England and France, before facing Argentina in Kumagaya and Tonga in Higashiosaka, which is 544km travel during a three-day turnaround.

We already had this discussion, other formats would suit Rugby tournaments better. 16 teams rather than 20 with mismatches which are glaringly obvious.

The following games for example :
New Zealand 63*Canada*0
New Zealand 71*Namibia 9
South Africa 66 Canada 7

But not only, the 3 and 4 day turnarounds meant some minnows couldn’t play their best rugby. That cannot be good for the image of the game.

 

[didds]

Its far too trite top say its about playing better earlier on in the pool etc. Yes, the Scots played pooryl against Ireland, and maybe should have scored more against Samoa, but the general position is this is also just down to scheduling. Had Sco (as an example) played Ireland and Japan first two up, and now were scheduled to play Russia last with a win there maybe taking them through, the idea that that is a 0-0 draw and they fail to go through because they
1) didnt get the BP
2) didnt get max points for a win

would make a mockery of it all.

Generically speaking its clear a side could fail to qualify because they didn't get the win and BP that everybody else had already managed to get

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

It appears WR feels it would be unfair to teams like NZ and England if they made an exception for Scotland.
[LAWS]World Rugby have criticised Dodson's comments, insisting the SRU were happy to sign up to the World Cup's "terms of participation" - which sets out the ban on rescheduling pool matches - before the tournament kicked-off.

In a statement, the governing body said: "It is disappointing that the Scottish Rugby Union should make such comments at a time when we are doing everything we can to enable all Sunday's matches to take place as scheduled, and when there is a real and significant threat to public safety owing to what is predicted to be one of the largest and most destructive typhoons to hit Japan since 1958."

The statement added: "The core principle that could enable us to explore a departure from the terms of participation, is a fair and consistent application of the rescheduling for all teams in a safe environment for teams, fans and essential match services.

"The sheer predicted scale and impact of the typhoon, and the complexity of team movements for eight matches, meant that an even-handed application was just not possible without putting safety at risk.

"Therefore, it was the fair and correct decision for all teams to maintain the position outlined in the terms of participation."[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

yes, if different teams treated differently Law suits will certainly fly

 

[DocY]

never mind the arguments about a tournament in typhoon season or reschedules. Is there any other means besides a scoreless draw that could be used to settle these problems?

boat race!

 

[Pablo]

boat race!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee like to drink with DocY, 'cos DocY's so much fun, fun fun!

 

[L'irlandais]

England or NZ could now become the first team to win a RWC without first winning all their pool games !

Only for the purposes of a pub quiz. Both teams remain undefeated in the Pool stages. Also they still have to win the thing; one of them is guaranteed to bear out the long standing statistic. To my mind, the stat is “No team has lifted the Webb Ellis trophy having lost a pool game.”

World Cup Pool A decider on after stadium inspection. Scotland fixture to go ahead. In light of the death toll from Typhoon Hagibis Scotland’s threatening WR with legal action is in very bad taste. [LAWS]The decision to give the game the green light spares the tournament of a major controversy.[/LAWS]There is a video of the Brave Blossoms training on Thursday wading knee deep out of the dressing rooms. Looked to me as if they had decided there and then to send Gregor Townsend's men home Tæ think again! Even if Scotland win with a try bonus, they are still not sure to progress. They need to deny the hosts both try bonus and losing bonus points. A draw would suffice for the home nation too.

In answer to the OP’s question why not use “Rock, paper, scissors.” to decide who goes thru’?

 

[timmad]

Great game to watch. Who were the underdogs?
Japan surprisingly higher in the WR rankings.
And Scotland - population 5.45m. Japan - population 126.7m
Mind you, on that basis, USA - pop 329m should have no trouble with NZ - pop 4.78m.

 

[L'irlandais]

Let’s not be under any illusions, Tier one nations dominate Rugby Union financially, smaller nations have far more skillful player bases, but struggle to pay the bills. Their best players end up overseas.

 

[crossref]

I think it is only really England and France who have money (and in England case a talent for wasting it)

 

[TigerCraig]

I think it is only really England and France who have money (and in England case a talent for wasting it)

New Zealand are smart with the money they do get - central contracts and central control and no power to clubs

 

[crossref]

New Zealand are smart with the money they do get - central contracts and central control and no power to clubs

and they don't build big, expensive stadiums :wink:

 

[menace]

I think it is only really England and France who have money (and in England case a talent for wasting it)

and they don't build big, expensive stadiums :wink:

oh you haven't got a monopoly on that..
at least you end up with assets....we 1) buy poor administrators and 2) buy rogue tweeters, just so we can end up in court and hand out massive compensation payments. 2) caused by 1)!!!

 

[L'irlandais]

New Zealand are smart with the money they do get - central contracts and central control and no power to clubs

Probaly the best thing Joe Schmidt brought to Ireland with him; the idea of central contracts. That and player safety, with imposed rest days, to the detriment of the club game, it must be said. But then he has always been quick to release players back to the provinces when necessary.