England vs France - Back in White

[Epaminondas Pules]

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.

You’ve no way of knowing that though. It’s simply an assumption.

[Oakboy]

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.

You’ve no way of knowing that though. It’s simply an assumption.

Your statement is objectively correct but the FACT is that no major rugby countries are on the raw end of the deal. You can believe that that FACT had no bearing on decisions made if you like. I choose to have doubts.

[Scrumhead]

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.

All of this. Yes, it’s sh*t that the games have been cancelled, I’d far rather they had been played for all sorts of reasons, but anyone claiming Italy genuinely had anything other than a mathematical chance of qualifying is smoking crack.

For all the fuss Scotland are kicking up, their game hasn’t been cancelled yet and may still go ahead.

It’s also worth pointing out that Japan don’t massively benefit from not playing. OK, they qualify, but if Ireland beat Samoa (which I’d say is very likely), Ireland win the group and Japan go in to a QF against NZ. If they play Scotland, I’d say Japan have a reasonably good chance of winning, topping the group and avoiding NZ.

[Epaminondas Pules]

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.

You’ve no way of knowing that though. It’s simply an assumption.

Your statement is objectively correct but the FACT is that no major rugby countries are on the raw end of the deal. You can believe that that FACT had no bearing on decisions made if you like. I choose to have doubts.

Having doubts is good, but means little in practice as it is purely a hypothetical situation. Equally IF the rumours of NZ being unwilling to be flexible are true then maybe they might also have altered that stance were it to mean they might go home instead. All IFs and BUTs though.

[Renniks]

It’s also worth pointing out that Japan don’t massively benefit from not playing. OK, they qualify, but if Ireland beat Samoa (which I’d say is very likely), Ireland win the group and Japan go in to a QF against NZ. If they play Scotland, I’d say Japan have a reasonably good chance of winning, topping the group and avoiding NZ.

I was under the assumption that if the game doesn't happen, Japan top the group

They will be on 16 points (Ireland's maximum possible) but they beat Ireland in their match, so they would go top

Is that not the case?

[Renniks]

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.

You’ve no way of knowing that though. It’s simply an assumption.

Your statement is objectively correct but the FACT is that no major rugby countries are on the raw end of the deal. You can believe that that FACT had no bearing on decisions made if you like. I choose to have doubts.

Depends what you mean by Major Rugby countries (Pretty sure Scotland would say they are)

Either way – the fact that none of the genuine contenders are on the rough end of it isn't really by chance, it's because they're genuine contenders and have won the games to get in this position

I'm pretty sure that doesn't make it okay - but it's why this conversation is about Italy and Scotland, not South Africa and Ireland

[Oakboy]

You’ve no way of knowing that though. It’s simply an assumption.

Your statement is objectively correct but the FACT is that no major rugby countries are on the raw end of the deal. You can believe that that FACT had no bearing on decisions made if you like. I choose to have doubts.

Depends what you mean by Major Rugby countries (Pretty sure Scotland would say they are)

Either way – the fact that none of the genuine contenders are on the rough end of it isn't really by chance, it's because they're genuine contenders and have won the games to get in this position

I'm pretty sure that doesn't make it okay - but it's why this conversation is about Italy and Scotland, not South Africa and Ireland

I was only implying that Italy was non-major on the grounds that the Scotland match had(s) not yet been cancelled. The genuine contenders/current points position business is largely a matter of luck for the organisers though, is it not? Previous RWCs have had their shocks in the qualifying matches where the final group matches were vital. This business sets precedents that leave a nasty taste, IMO.

[Scrumhead]

It’s also worth pointing out that Japan don’t massively benefit from not playing. OK, they qualify, but if Ireland beat Samoa (which I’d say is very likely), Ireland win the group and Japan go in to a QF against NZ. If they play Scotland, I’d say Japan have a reasonably good chance of winning, topping the group and avoiding NZ.

I was under the assumption that if the game doesn't happen, Japan top the group

They will be on 16 points (Ireland's maximum possible) but they beat Ireland in their match, so they would go top

Is that not the case?

I though points difference came before head to head?

Japan are on +46 which obviously won’t change and Ireland’s already better (+52). If they win with a bonus point that will obviously get better.

[Raggs]

It’s also worth pointing out that Japan don’t massively benefit from not playing. OK, they qualify, but if Ireland beat Samoa (which I’d say is very likely), Ireland win the group and Japan go in to a QF against NZ. If they play Scotland, I’d say Japan have a reasonably good chance of winning, topping the group and avoiding NZ.

I was under the assumption that if the game doesn't happen, Japan top the group

They will be on 16 points (Ireland's maximum possible) but they beat Ireland in their match, so they would go top

Is that not the case?

I though points difference came before head to head?

Japan are on +46 which obviously won’t change and Ireland’s already better (+52). If they win with a bonus point that will obviously get better.

Head to head first, then points difference. That means they play South Africa...

[Puja]

{Mod} In the interests of being consistent, have moved the Georgia vs Australia posts over to the GMB thread. {/Mod}

[Digby]

What's the score in the Oz game?

[twitchy]

Putting things into perspective, what japan is dealing with while trying to hold a world cup.

[Galfon]

Yes, 1 death already and land around Yokohama stadium is underwater.
As time goes by cancellations will be seen as correct, but 2 hr flight to Seoul, 4 hr to HK..must have been in the plan-list somewhere for big matches.

[Mellsblue]

Exactly. They have contingency plans for the all the knockout matches, why not this weekend, too.

[Raggs]

Earthquake too now.

[Galfon]

The Gods aren't happy about something..

[p/d]

Earthquake too now.

I think that was just the Irish supporters clapping Best for finding his man

[Digby]

Exactly. They have contingency plans for the all the knockout matches, why not this weekend, too.

Because they weren't asked or expected to. I'm not against changing that, though I would like to know what the possible impact to costs might be and whether that impacts who might try to host the event

[Mellsblue]

Exactly. They have contingency plans for the all the knockout matches, why not this weekend, too.

Because they weren't asked or expected to. I'm not against changing that, though I would like to know what the possible impact to costs might be and whether that impacts who might try to host the event

Who weren’t asked or expected to? It’s the organising committee’s job to avoid these things. I get it’s impossible when there are matches scattered all over the week but this weekend is essential a knockout round and this could’ve been avoided. This is all supposing that the rumours that there were contingency plans but certain parties stuck a spanner in works isn’t true.

Who else might host the event in the middle of a known natural disaster season?

[Digby]

Exactly. They have contingency plans for the all the knockout matches, why not this weekend, too.

Because they weren't asked or expected to. I'm not against changing that, though I would like to know what the possible impact to costs might be and whether that impacts who might try to host the event

Who weren’t asked or expected to? It’s the organising committee’s job to avoid these things. I get it’s impossible when there are matches scattered all over the week but this weekend is essential a knockout round and this could’ve been avoided. This is all supposing that the rumours that there were contingency plans but certain parties stuck a spanner in works isn’t true.

Who else might host the event in the middle of a known natural disaster season?

Japan has a contract to host the world cup which states if a group match cannot be held what the situation is. That's their job. It would be preferable to see all games proceed, but it's clearly not their job to ensure all games are played when that's not what the contract says.

And who else might host in a natural disaster is the wrong way to look at disasters. What if Paris and/or London were struck by a major terrorist event? Sadly both have suffered from such events in recent years.

If the game wants to say all games must be played I'm fine with that, but stipulate to that in advance of countries bidding, and accept it will likely increase the costs of hosting an event to some (small) degree

[Mellsblue]

Because they weren't asked or expected to. I'm not against changing that, though I would like to know what the possible impact to costs might be and whether that impacts who might try to host the event

Who weren’t asked or expected to? It’s the organising committee’s job to avoid these things. I get it’s impossible when there are matches scattered all over the week but this weekend is essential a knockout round and this could’ve been avoided. This is all supposing that the rumours that there were contingency plans but certain parties stuck a spanner in works isn’t true.

Who else might host the event in the middle of a known natural disaster season?

Japan has a contract to host the world cup which states if a group match cannot be held what the situation is. That's their job. It would be preferable to see all games proceed, but it's clearly not their job to ensure all games are played when that's not what the contract says.

And who else might host in a natural disaster is the wrong way to look at disasters. What if Paris and/or London were struck by a major terrorist event? Sadly both have suffered from such events in recent years.

If the game wants to say all games must be played I'm fine with that, but stipulate to that in advance of countries bidding, and accept it will likely increase the costs of hosting an event to some (small) degree

As far as I know, WR has far more input in it than that. It’s not like the Olympics. For example, Alan Gilpin is WR COO and Rugby World Cup Tournament Director. Even if it is just left to the hosts then the requirements must be more onerous from World Rugby. Somebody, somewhere has f**ked up.

You can’t just change the goalposts on what disasters we’re discussing. They’ve put the tournament in the typhoon season it can’t be a surprise one has occurred. Terrorist attacks are random but, yes, I’d expect contingency plans for those as well.

I agree with your final paragraph. But I would as it’s agreeing with me.

[Raggs]

They may well have had plans in place. Fairly sure I've read they did. But this isn't exactly a typical typhoon. It's the strongest that's ever hit them and it's 1400km across. Contingency plans for a normal typhoon probably don't work so well againsta once in a lifetime one.

[Mellsblue]

The weather for Ireland v Samoa looked lovely.

[p/d]

The weather for Ireland v Samoa looked lovely.

Surprised this post hasn't been moved to the GRF

[Digby]

The weather for Ireland v Samoa looked lovely.

Which is the match they thought might be at risk a few days back, they could have moved that game to another location only to find they'd then lost the Ireland game. Giant typhoons it seems being a little inconvenient