[RWC2019] Typhoon Hagibis - Discussion Thread

[Leinster Fan]

A few people have mentioned cricket where yeah the rules are if it rains the games off and you just have to accept it.

Two major points though

1. That was also hugely controversial at this year's tournament
2. They have 9 round robin games, we have 4, so the effect of one game being cancelled in rugby is vastly bigger than the equivalent in cricket.

The whole "well you shoulda done better in your other games then" thing doesn't really do it for me, it's not like the tournament had fair scheduling in the first place so even if teams have played the same teams they haven't necessarily played the same level of opposition.

This tournament was barely fair in the first place, but at this stage the idea that teams are being assessed equally is laughable.

 

[Reiser99]

I think the problem you have is there will be so many people involved in the decision and it sounds more like they couldn't get a solution everyone agreed on, but instead had multiple solutions that only some people agreed on. WR definitely need to look at rules regarding matches that have to be cancelled, because it's caused this mess which is just embarrassing. Personally teams shouldn't have a say in whether a match is moved days. For example in tennis if a match takes too much time the next games played the day after. Players don't get to complain that they have a shorter turn around. It's the nature of sport that you will never have a completely 100% level playing field and even if the AB's did offer to play later I think it's shameful they couldn't accept a later match. I certainly agree that if they had needed the points they definitely would have agreed to a later game.

I doubt WR will have another tournament any time soon in another country with such extreme weather conditions, but they still have to learn from this because it's spoilt the World Cup.

 

[Leinster Fan]

I'm sorry but who are the All Blacks to 'accept' a later match? They're competitors, not f***ing organisers.

I'd have sympathy for the shorter turnaround thing except that they weren't even in the quarter finals until after this game. You can't cancel a quarter final because you'll be at a disadvantage for a semi.

If they did offer to play on Friday and world rugby said no then that's just (unsurprisingly) dumb from WR, but this does look like a team basically making a decision that sends themselves through to a round they hadn't qualified for yet, which is just wrong.

 

[Brigantine]

If it somehow turns out that there were really good reasons why these games couldn't be played under some sort of contingency plan, then I think people could accept it, and then the 0-0 draw thing seems fair enough.

The whole story here is how every indication says the reasons aren't good enough and the decision was made too lightly. That brings the whole question of motivation into it, and that's where the unfairness is.
They have a lot to explain, but I'll give them up until the quarters to hear them out.

For future world cups, given the problems with 4 day turnarounds and insufficient room for contingency... How realistic is it that WR will allow an extra week? It's already pretty long, maybe we'll have to go back to a 4 team pool format.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I'm sorry but who are the All Blacks to 'accept' a later match? They're competitors, not f***ing organisers.

I'd have sympathy for the shorter turnaround thing except that they weren't even in the quarter finals until after this game. You can't cancel a quarter final because you'll be at a disadvantage for a semi.

If they did offer to play on Friday and world rugby said no then that's just (unsurprisingly) dumb from WR, but this does look like a team basically making a decision that sends themselves through to a round they hadn't qualified for yet, which is just wrong.

Just read an update from World rugby saying Monday was never an option, Friday was considered not viable by RWC. Shame on RWC for not accommodating a Friday game, surely both Italy and NZ were up for that.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Let's just get real here: in an alternative universe where the All Blacks lost to South Africs and the points fell in such a way that they needed a result here to go through, the Italy game would never have been cancelled. The double standards here are sickening.

As others have said, Brian Moore has hit the nail on the head.

Make no mistake, every rugby player at the tournament and every rugby fan around the world has been let down by the clowns running the sport here and it's going to take a long, long time for rugby to come back from the reputational damage that's been inflicted on the sport this week. That's the sense I'm getting both from looking at international press and talking to casual rugby/sports fans I know. Heads need to roll as a result of this farce.

A few people have mentioned cricket where yeah the rules are if it rains the games off and you just have to accept it.

Two major points though

1. That was also hugely controversial at this year's tournament
2. They have 9 round robin games, we have 4, so the effect of one game being cancelled in rugby is vastly bigger than the equivalent in cricket.

The whole "well you shoulda done better in your other games then" thing doesn't really do it for me, it's not like the tournament had fair scheduling in the first place so even if teams have played the same teams they haven't necessarily played the same level of opposition.

This tournament was barely fair in the first place, but at this stage the idea that teams are being assessed equally is laughable.

Except in the cricket World Cup there were potential winners missing out, not just Scotland and Italy who are potential quarterfinal participants but no more (in all likelihood . And if the cancelled games in the cricket World Cup had been played and the teams expected to win had won, then there would have been different semi finalists. Expected results in the rugby World Cup wouldn’t have changed who made the quarterfinals.

it’s super ****,, but i don’t think it is worse than the cricket World Cup. Main difference is rugby Is obsessed with world cups these days, more so than cricket.

 

[OneBlackEye]

This thread is hilarious. You guys really wear your All Blacks hate on your sleeves huh?

Let's just get real here: in an alternative universe where the All Blacks lost to South Africs and the points fell in such a way that they needed a result here to go through, the Italy game would never have been cancelled. The double standards here are sickening.

How you get all the way to "sickening" from a scenario you just totally fabricated in your head is amazing!

 

[OneBlackEye]

That's like saying X beat Y, Y beat Z so X is better than Z though, it's silly when analysing your average test match

I get your point but you've just described how the entire world cup works.

The eventual winner hasn't beaten every team in the competition. You're saying the winner isn't the better team because they only beat a team that beat a team that beat a team that beat another team that probably beat 3 teams in pool play?

That would have been interesting in the last world cup if France won the final because Tonga could then have claimed they were the best team of the tournament.

 

[Which Tyler]

I'd be happy with that resolution actually. Then it's just the All Blacks who are within their rights but still ********s for being inflexible.

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)

Just read an update from World rugby saying Monday was never an option, Friday was considered not viable by RWC. Shame on RWC for not accommodating a Friday game, surely both Italy and NZ were up for that.

I wonder how they square "Friday isn't viable" with a match being played on friday anyway.

 

[donmcdazzle]

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)


I wonder how they square "Friday isn't viable" with a match being played on friday anyway.

Not sure what to believe but World Rugby announced that NZ didn't turn anything down, a Monday game was never considered or contemplated.

 

[Which Tyler]

Not sure what to believe but World Rugby announced that NZ didn't turn anything down, a Monday game was never considered or contemplated.

There's so much going on, I don't know what to believe - That has the ring of "technically true" about it though. The Saturday matches would have been talking about playing a day early, rather than late, it's the Sunday matches that would have been considering a 24 hour delay.
Any suggestion that they didn't consider a 24 hour delay for those simply isn't credible, given how many have been suggesting it - including the unions who would be part of the discussion.

 

[bushytop]

I blame Pichot!

 

[TheOvalBall]

World Rugby needs to be blamed for this. Plan B should always be in place. Teams prepare for 4 pool games. Well in advance.
This is embarrassing for Japan and for the game.

 

[saulan]

If they did offer to play on Friday and world rugby said no then that's just (unsurprisingly) dumb from WR, but this does look like a team basically making a decision that sends themselves through to a round they hadn't qualified for yet, which is just wrong.

if WR said no to a Friday game, I would imagine there was a major factor to this that I haven’t seen mentioned yet. We have spoken about the shorter turnaround for the All Blacks in QFs, but if this game moved to Friday that would be terribly unfair to Italy, who would have had a three day turnaround from a bruising Springbok encounter, where they had two props off injured and two red carded. Surely they would have had to ship in some props from across the world, who would then be heavily jet lagged... and then say good luck mate, it’s the All Blacks.

If we are talking fairness, this game could never be played on Friday for Italy’s sake, and the only option should have been a shift to Sunday (not saying Italy would have said no to Friday, I’m sure they just wanted to play, but still wouldn’t have been fair to them)

 

[Umaga's Witness]

 

[BiggusLaddus]

The whole "well you shoulda done better in your other games then" thing doesn't really do it for me, it's not like the tournament had fair scheduling in the first place so even if teams have played the same teams they haven't necessarily played the same level of opposition.

Sorry for cutting out the rest of your post but I wanted to agree with this bit in particular.

In 2007 England were thrashed in their first group match against SA, but went on to make the final and were very close to winning against the same opponents.

So changing nothing else but the weather, England go from being 3 blades of grass away from being double world champions to limping out at the group stage because they "should have done better in the opening match".

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Once this Typhoon passes all of this controversy will all blow over.

 

[donmcdazzle]

if WR said no to a Friday game, I would imagine there was a major factor to this that I haven’t seen mentioned yet. We have spoken about the shorter turnaround for the All Blacks in QFs, but if this game moved to Friday that would be terribly unfair to Italy, who would have had a three day turnaround from a bruising Springbok encounter, where they had two props off injured and two red carded. Surely they would have had to ship in some props from across the world, who would then be heavily jet lagged... and then say good luck mate, it’s the All Blacks.

If we are talking fairness, this game could never be played on Friday for Italy’s sake, and the only option should have been a shift to Sunday (not saying Italy would have said no to Friday, I’m sure they just wanted to play, but still wouldn’t have been fair to them)

Didn’t SA play Italy on Friday night? They’d have a 7 day turnaround which is heaps.

 

[Scotty]

England vs France...tbh England were favourites and already on top of the pool so i can accept.

NZ needed this game to guarentee top place but tbh were not in alot danger of losing vs Italy so i can accept. I dont like either of these but i can accept them.

Japan vs Scotland, game goes ahead as planned then great. Japan unfairly go through if its called off is unfair on Scotland

If the game goes ahead with no crowd it is unfair(to a lesser extent) to Japan, that atmosphere will be amazing for Japan everyone who isnt Scottish will be cheering them on.

Im not saying it should be cancelled out of fairness before someone jumps to that conclusion. I truely hope its going ahead. And if possible at all the game can go ahead it must even if no crowds.

 

[Leinster Fan]

This thread is hilarious. You guys really wear your All Blacks hate on your sleeves huh?



How you get all the way to "sickening" from a scenario you just totally fabricated in your head is amazing!

I don't hate the All Blacks, that should be obvious from my post history.

Whatever makes you happy though.