[RWC2019][Pool A] Round 4 - Japan vs. Scotland (13/10/2019)

[bushytop]

Yeah, their deffo not the same.

 

[General Melchett]

Duplicate

 

[Reiser99]

Yeah, their deffo not the same.

You say that, but with sport you never know. I know I'm being extreme here, but say NZ got two red cards for high tackles, it then changes the game completely. If Scotland have a case if the game gets cancelled, then Italy do too. You can't just go on who would probably win or if a game is competitive because that is contrary to the entire nature of sport which is that anything can happen.

 

[scootz]

FWIW, as a Scotsman, I feel that Italy have been equally let down. It's just a tad too convenient that the sports poster-boys (NZ) get a bye, and that the hosts look likely to get a free pass to the KO stages.

 

[bushytop]

You say that, but with sport you never know. I know I'm being extreme here, but say NZ got two red cards for high tackles, it then changes the game completely. If Scotland have a case if the game gets cancelled, then Italy do too. You can't just go on who would probably win or if a game is competitive because that is contrary to the entire nature of sport which is that anything can happen.

Yeah, I'll agree that anything is possible but in my opinion this is a 50/50 game here... with no bonus point needed depending on the defensive effort.

Italy vs NZ game was I think about 99/1 in NZ's favour... AND Italy needed a BP win.

There's no doubt both teams will have been hard done by should both games be cancelled but I do feel the effects of both games being cancelled are different.

 

[Reiser99]

Yeah, I'll agree that anything is possible but in my opinion this is a 50/50 game here... with no bonus point needed depending on the defensive effort.

Italy vs NZ game was I thing about 99/1 in NZ's favour... AND Italy needed a BP win.

There's no doubt both teams will have been hard done by should both games be cancelled but I do feel the effects of both games being cancelled are different.

I think in terms of individual teams you're right, the effects are different. However in terms of the integrity of the competition there is no difference for me. If Scotland game goes ahead as normal because it's safe and possible then fine, however if it gets moved then there is no reason Italy vs New Zealand couldn't be.

 

[General Melchett]

What I find surprising is that games were played in the Kobe sweatbox under a closed roof even though there was no rain or adverse weather and yet when the adverse weather comes along there are seemingly no contingency plans in place despite having years to prepare and plan.

Safety must come first and if they somehow manage to come up with a plan B and change the date or venue then Italy will be rightly miffed. WR will either be slated for lack of Plan B or for being inconsistent.

 

[bushytop]

I think in terms of individual teams you're right, the effects are different. However in terms of the integrity of the competition there is no difference for me. If Scotland game goes ahead as normal because it's safe and possible then fine, however if it gets moved then there is no reason Italy vs New Zealand couldn't be.

I'll go along with that.

I heard that the problem with moving games was that the stadiums posited in the contingency plans (drawn up a while back I might add) were like only required to be over 20 kilometres away from the stadium originally planned to stage the match. When a typhoon is like 1400 km wide... moving a game 20km is never gonna cut it.

If anything this just highlights how 'frail' the apparent 'robust' contingency plans were. The alternate stadiums for games should have been further away... then they may have actually been able to move the games.

 

[OwenPB]

Stop the stupid "tension" music when the go to tmo!

 

[Reiser99]

I'll go along with that.

I heard that the problem with moving games was that the stadiums posited in the contingency plans (drawn up a while back I might add) were like only required to be over 20 kilometres away from the stadium originally planned to stage the match. When a typhoon is like 1400 km wide... moving a game 20km is never gonna cut it.

If anything this just highlights how 'frail' the apparent 'robust' contingency plans were. The alternate stadiums for games should have been further away... then they may have actually been able to move the games.

Yeah if 20km was the limit that's ridiculous. I'm no expert on typhoons, but that definitely doesn't seem like far enough.

 

[barthelemy]

I do understand the gutted scot if this game is not played, there was some typhoon threat on hte French USA match which would have changed a lot of things for the french i.e maybe not qualifying, even more with the england match canceled. However, every federation has signed the rules of this world cup where it is clearly stated that in case of cancelation, matches are considered as a draw and everybody has accepted this. So it is unfair amd harsh but the rules are applied.

 

[scootz]

It's not the Rules that's causing the controversy here - it's that the contingency planning surrounding the tournament seems to have been VERY weak!

We know that Rugby CAN be played in Japan this weekend - we're watching a game right now! The feeling is that if there was a genuine will, then World Rugby would find a way to play the affected ties.

 

[barthelemy]

It's not the Rules that's causing the controversy here - it's that the contingency planning surrounding the tournament seems to have been VERY weak!

We know that Rugby CAN be played in Japan this weekend - we're watching a game right now! The feeling is that if there was a genuine will, then World Rugby would find a way to play the affected ties.

Tue that the contingency plans were not ideal, I have no clue if the contingency plans were part of the rules of this world cup ? were they clearly highlighted ?

 

[bushytop]

Tue that the contingency plans were not ideal, I have no clue if the contingency plans were part of the rules of this world cup ? were they clearly highlighted ?

As far as I know, the various unions were just assured that the contingencies were 'robust'... to all intents and purposes they weren't. Unions have a right to feel aggrieved imo.

 

[General Melchett]

FWIW, as a Scotsman, I feel that Italy have been equally let down. It's just a tad too convenient that the sports poster-boys (NZ) get a bye, and tha

Had the ABs lost their first game to SA then you can bet your bottom dollar they wouldn't have been lobbying WR with a 'rules are rules' argument.

It would be useful if the media were to interview people involved in planning previous RWCs to see what their thoughts are on the contingency planning. I guess they might not be willing to expose WR or the current organisers.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Just a bit of rain.

 

[bushytop]

Just a bit of rain.

Gene Kelly would not only have played... but sung and danced!

 

[FLOBALOB]

They don't need to beat Japan with a bonus point. They need to win by 4 clear points, I.e by more than 7.

I know- I was responding to Jocks earlier post inferring that Italy didnt get a chance to beat NZ with a BP. They,also, didnt need a BP.
keep up

 

[FLOBALOB]

You say that, but with sport you never know. I know I'm being extreme here, but say NZ got two red cards for high tackles, it then changes the game completely. If Scotland have a case if the game gets cancelled, then Italy do too. You can't just go on who would probably win or if a game is competitive because that is contrary to the entire nature of sport which is that anything can happen.

Exactly.
I'm surprised some think its different just because of chances/odds of winning. That is favouritism and not sport.