England vs France - Back in White

[Mellsblue]

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

True but they’ve known since Thursday it was hitting Tokyo.

[Galfon]

Panic over - Sco have a chance of meeting the AB's in the last 8.

[Which Tyler]

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.

It SEEMS that the contingency for England v France was to move to a stadium 14miles away.
I'm not expert on Typhoons - but I'm pretty sure it doesn't need to be a once-in-a-generation typhoon to render 20 km as not far enough.

It SEEMS that the contingency for NZ v Italy was to delay by 24 hours (nice consistency there, from the organisation screaming that they have to be consistent in their contingencies).
NZ didn't want to do that (despite having apparently read and signed up to the rubst contingencies) - so the competitor has the right to veto the contingency plan, without forfeitting.

It SEEMS that the contingency for Scotland vs Japan and Namibia v Canada was... literally non-existent (nice "robust" consistency there, from the organisation screaming that it has to be consistent in their contingencies, which are very "robust").


Now, it seems to me that when planning contingencies for an event taking place during typhoon season, you'd look at typhoon frequency, severity and size. You'd also need a contingency plan in place for earthquakes - though they'd come with so little warning as to be impossible to plan too much for.
Nippon.com tells me that for September & October, Japan can expect 5 typhoons to approach / afect Japan, and 1 to make landfall. So you absolutely HAVE to make contingencies, it is far more likely than not, for the RWC to be weather affected.
It would apear that a moderately large typhoon affects an area (to the point of preventing rugby being played) around a 250km radius from the eye.
So any contingency should involve, either moving a match in time, to play it before the effects build up, or after, by enough that it is likely to be playable - it would seem that 24 hours either side is safe (it also appears that NZ didn't like that contingency). The alternative is to move it in space - in which case, you'd want to either have 1 alternative venue 500+km away, or 2 alternative venues 250+km away so that they would be unaffected by the same typhoon. If you happen to get a super typhoon affecting a much larger area than anticipated, then so be it - that's unanticipated. The chances of a typhoon hitting, but a move of 20km (WR contingency) being enough are approximately zero.

Personally, I would then look at the size of Japan, and the maximum distance between stadiums used for the RWC (2,100km) and find it pretty much inconceivable that a typhoon would affect both Nagashimi (3 stadiums) and Hokkaido (1 stadium). You get a good 48 hours notice of reasonably precise tragectory for a typhoon - longer for less precise. I would not think it unreasonable for WR or RWC to essentially keep 2 stadia at opposite ends of the country ready enough that they can be used at 48 hours notice in the event of a typhoon disrupting the tournament (let's face it, they're being used anyway, so there's zero extra preparation required for that). We already know that teams can make the journey in time - because they have. If it's possible for England and France to both decamp 1,000km with 24 hours norice, I'm pretty sure that it's possible for WR to decamp 3 match officials the same distance with 48 hours notice. 70,000 fans are a different matter; but they're also not necessary for a rugby match to take place and playing behind closed doors is a better option than cancelling, whilst also making zero difference for the authorities dealing with a typhoon. Moving TV is also more difficult than moving teams; I simply don't know how much notice they'd require, but ultimately, rugby can be played without full TV coverage, and it's not beyond the wit of man to put up a static camera - which is still better for everyone than no match at all. If it means that matches are played back-to-back in the same stadium, then so be it - we know it's possible (although some of the pitches have been a disgrace that even the WRU or FFR would be ashamed of).
If you prefer the option of moving the match in time; so the same location, just 24 hours earlier or 24 hours later - then the only issue is to make the decision early enough.

If any team doesn't want to abide by the contingency plan; then they can always forfeit the match, and let the record say that they lost 28-0 with their opponent scoring 4 penalty tries.

[Mellsblue]

This.

[Digby]

A fair amount of that is saying what the situation could/should have been in advance, not what it was in advance.

[Which Tyler]

A fair amount of that is saying what the situation could/should have been in advance, not what it was in advance.

Yes. That's the entire point.

I started with what appears to have been the situation in advance - pointed out the utter hipocrisy (and outright lies) of WR.
I then looked at what was known in advance about Typhoons.
I then suggested the sort of contingencies that most people thought were already in place, and would actually classify as "robust contingency plans".

Mind you, it's kinda difficult to propose an alternative without it being alternative.
Had the above been the plan (it didn't take me 10 years to come up with that - about 20 minutes - mostly on google searching for information on Typhoons, and maps of Japan) been the case initially, then this entire conversation wouldn't have happened in the first place.

[Digby]

A fair amount of that is saying what the situation could/should have been in advance, not what it was in advance.

Yes. That's the entire point.

I started with what appears to have been the situation in advance - pointed out the utter hipocrisy (and outright lies) of WR.
I then looked at what was known in advance about Typhoons.
I then suggested the sort of contingencies that most people thought were already in place, and would actually classify as "robust contingency plans".

Mind you, it's kinda difficult to propose an alternative without it being alternative.
Had the above been the plan (it didn't take me 10 years to come up with that - about 20 minutes - mostly on google searching for information on Typhoons, and maps of Japan) been the case initially, then this entire conversation wouldn't have happened in the first place.

We shall wait to see if such thinking forms part of subsequent events, for better or for worse it didn't this time. I remain unperturbed events unfolded as they did on the rugby front this time around, if anything well done to the event organisers for getting as much continuation as they have

[CunningPunter]

Would it be overly cynical to suggest that the contingency plan consisted of hoping there wouldn't be a typhoon?

[Raggs]

I doubt delaying the game was ever really an option, outside perhaps both teams agreeing to it as it's not the rules.

As for different locations, the fact that Scotland Japan is on suggests its more of a factor of the weather being more or less on top of a game, rather than what's left after its cleared.

[Which Tyler]

Would it be overly cynical to suggest that the contingency plan consisted of hoping there wouldn't be a typhoon?

I suspect that that would be entirely fair.

For me, it leaves a huge asterisk on the entire competition (not Japan's fault, nor the JRU - it's WR and the RWC organiser's faults).
IF any of England, NZ or France reach the final, there will be an asterisk as to whether they had an unfair advantage due to an extra week's rest (I accept that the effect of rest will have reduced down to minor significance by the time of the final)
IF any of England, NZ or France fail to reach the Semi-finals, there will be an asterisk as to whether they had an unfair disadvantage due to arriving a the QF stage with all momentum robbed from them, and arriving rusty (I accept that that excuse only really holds for 1 match).
It is literally impossible for all 3 to reach the SF, and none of them to reach the final. Therefore the winner of this tournament has an asterisk next to their name, The tournament has been devalued for me - and I don't expect anyone to agree with me, though I suspect some will. Of course, the record books won't show such an asterisk.

I doubt delaying the game was ever really an option, outside perhaps both teams agreeing to it as it's not the rules.

As for different locations, the fact that Scotland Japan is on suggests its more of a factor of the weather being more or less on top of a game, rather than what's left after its cleared.

Ultimately, we just do'nt know - because WR are keeping schtum as to what the plans were. but we KNOW that 2 weeks ago, moving the location was discussed. We KNOW that France and England decamped to Oita before the match was cancelled. We KNOW that no alternative plans have been in place for Scotland v Japan. We KNOW that WR have claimed that their contingencies need be agreed unanimously, and that they need to be consistent for all teams. The rest is heresay and rumour - albeit from generally trustworthy sources.

[Raggs]

I think if a team gets through the quarters, semis and finals they've earned it regardless.

[Raggs]

Do we know these things? We know the rules say it cannot be postponed.

A typhoon is unpredictable until fairly close to the event, so relocating may just put you'll in the path if done too early. I also agree that relocating one game would require relocating them all. That's a he'll of a lot of short term mass planning.

[Oakboy]

It is literally impossible for all 3 to reach the SF, and none of them to reach the final. Therefore the winner of this tournament has an asterisk next to their name, The tournament has been devalued for me - and I don't expect anyone to agree with me, though I suspect some will.

I don't really see how any fair-minded sports person can disagree.

[Digby]

So we're not going to think merely the champion team will overcome the hurdles placed in front of them?

[Oakboy]

So we're not going to think merely the champion team will overcome the hurdles placed in front of them?

Yes, realistically, but with a nasty taste to accompany that thought because Italy were eliminated without the chance to qualify for the QFs on the pitch, NO MATTER HOW UNLIKELY THAT OUTCOME MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

Has there ever been a major international sporting event decided in this way before?

[Mellsblue]

Do we know these things? We know the rules say it cannot be postponed.

A typhoon is unpredictable until fairly close to the event, so relocating may just put you'll in the path if done too early. I also agree that relocating one game would require relocating them all. That's a he'll of a lot of short term mass planning.

Then the rules are wrong headed.

In the end we lost three matches that could’ve easily been brought forward a day, back a day or moved elsewhere. Are we saying that Nambia and Canada wouldn’t have put up with some disruption to play their final World Cup match?!? All we have now are Wales and Aus facing fresher teams or teams that haven’t had a proper hit out, dependent on you view. It’s a farce that could’ve easily been avoided with even a small bit of planning. There are three tournament stadia miles away from the affected areas. Again, they have contingency plans to play all four QFs. Logically, that means they could’ve played the three cancelled games had they wished/planned.

[Cameo]

Agree with everything WT has said here.

Realistically, come the final, I think it will be largely be forgotten about and I wouldn't want to take too much away from the winner but I do think it has undermined the tournament to some degree and called into question WR's competency and understanding of how important games are even if they do not decide qualification.

[Mellsblue]

Just been talking to someone on the board of the ERL at the rugby club. They have someone who is on the Rugby League World Cup over the there in an observer role. He is reporting that the cancellations could’ve been avoided.

[Digby]

I'm sure the cancellations could have been avoided if all stakeholders agree to the moves, but it's very likely not everyone agreed, partly because of a huge natural disaster, partly 'cause the rules said they didn't need to.

Perhaps the rules are wrong, so lobby to have them different next time around (including if you want the idea that multiple stadiums should be on stand-by) even if the IRB don't act, and even the IRB are likely to act somewhat in response

[Mellsblue]

The rules are clearly wrong. That is what everyone arguing with you has been saying. It’s not really on the unions to lobby. WR should be able to run their own shop.

I was told a great story as part of the conversation. There was the African Rugby League tournament in Lagos last week. Nobody paid the kit supplier so the kits didn’t turn up. The ERL supplied kits that were meant to go to the local community; however, they were all the same colour so the local organisers had to find kits for the other team. Reading between the lines I think Man Utd, Liverpool etc unexpectedly entered teams. There was confusion over the ground so they ended playing at a cricket ground but only after bribing the grounds man $3,000 to mark out the pitch. Makeshift posts were made from trees. One of them fell over on the final day so local kids were paid to hold them up. The Cameroon team travelled on a bus for four days to get there but two players were turned back at the border as they didn’t have enough money to pay the border guards.

[Digby]

I would prefer different rules, but I don't often like people just deciding to make up their own rules on the fly, that ends up with Nigel Owens whistling to his own law book

[richy678]

The rules are clearly wrong. That is what everyone arguing with you has been saying. It’s not really on the unions to lobby. WR should be able to run their own shop.

I was told a great story as part of the conversation. There was the African Rugby League tournament in Lagos last week. Nobody paid the kit supplier so the kits didn’t turn up. The ERL supplied kits that were meant to go to the local community; however, they were all the same colour so the local organisers had to find kits for the other team. Reading between the lines I think Man Utd, Liverpool etc unexpectedly entered teams. There was confusion over the ground so they ended playing at a cricket ground but only after bribing the grounds man $3,000 to mark out the pitch. Makeshift posts were made from trees. One of them fell over on the final day so local kids were paid to hold them up. The Cameroon team travelled on a bus for four days to get there but two players were turned back at the border as they didn’t have enough money to pay the border guards.

Build it and they will come.

[Mellsblue]

The rules are clearly wrong. That is what everyone arguing with you has been saying. It’s not really on the unions to lobby. WR should be able to run their own shop.

I was told a great story as part of the conversation. There was the African Rugby League tournament in Lagos last week. Nobody paid the kit supplier so the kits didn’t turn up. The ERL supplied kits that were meant to go to the local community; however, they were all the same colour so the local organisers had to find kits for the other team. Reading between the lines I think Man Utd, Liverpool etc unexpectedly entered teams. There was confusion over the ground so they ended playing at a cricket ground but only after bribing the grounds man $3,000 to mark out the pitch. Makeshift posts were made from trees. One of them fell over on the final day so local kids were paid to hold them up. The Cameroon team travelled on a bus for four days to get there but two players were turned back at the border as they didn’t have enough money to pay the border guards.

Build it and they will come.

If they can afford to pay the bribe!!

[Oakboy]

I would prefer different rules, but I don't often like people just deciding to make up their own rules on the fly, that ends up with Nigel Owens whistling to his own law book

Surely, the rules for any significant event should require all fixtures to take place? It's not rocket science and no lobbying should be necessary.

[Digby]

I would prefer different rules, but I don't often like people just deciding to make up their own rules on the fly, that ends up with Nigel Owens whistling to his own law book

Surely, the rules for any significant event should require all fixtures to take place? It's not rocket science and no lobbying should be necessary.

You say surely, but I assume they've merely copied the framework of previous events. if they've changed it so as not to protect group games in this WC that would be a bit weird.

I don't know if lobbying is required, I'm sure the IRB will act on this. But I do wonder how easy it is to run with contingencies for so many more games, it's all very well us saying just do it with no idea what that actually entails. I suppose there is a modern vogue in our lives to see massive events being pushed with no idea what's needed to make it happen or what the costs might be.