RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:If people are so keen now to ensure matches are played they should have thought about this long before the tournament started, to my way of thinking it's their own fault for not considering the possible outcomes and lobbying to effect change before the event kicked off.

It was thought of - 10 years ago
We were all assured that this had been considered.
We were all assured that "robust contingencies" had been out in place.
We now find that those "robust contingencies" meant "fuck it, let's not bother"

Don’t diss Nolli.

Well the rules do say if a game isn't played it'll be recorded as a draw, the team either know this or didn't look, to complain after the event falls into the category known as pathetic. Now okay they might not have been able to effect change had they lobbied for it ahead of the event, but if they didn't even try it's too late to complain now.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:If people are so keen now to ensure matches are played they should have thought about this long before the tournament started, to my way of thinking it's their own fault for not considering the possible outcomes and lobbying to effect change before the event kicked off.

It was thought of - 10 years ago
We were all assured that this had been considered.
We were all assured that "robust contingencies" had been out in place.
We now find that those "robust contingencies" meant "fuck it, let's not bother"

is that documented somewhere? I'd be happy to have a read up (I have actually been offering to help other people complete their tasks today, so I find I've got some time on my hands)

this is a game that could have been significantly improved by Typhoon Hagibis

Mellsblue wrote:Don’t diss Nolli.

who? Is that 'im or 'er

p/d wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Don’t diss Nolli.

who? Is that 'im or 'er

harsh, very harsh

J Dory wrote:Cheslin Kolbe, how good is he? Cant wait to see what he does next.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Is this you getting a shoutout?

Mellsblue wrote: The line coming out of Japan is that WR were planning to move matches until commercial partners and NZ complained. If that is true then, well, what a crock of ****.

Care to share your sauces?

J Dory wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The line coming out of Japan is that WR were planning to move matches until commercial partners and NZ complained. If that is true then, well, what a crock of ****.

Care to share your sauces?

They are multiple. Think I heard it first on The Times podcast.

Mellsblue wrote:

J Dory wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The line coming out of Japan is that WR were planning to move matches until commercial partners and NZ complained. If that is true then, well, what a crock of ****.

Care to share your sauces?

They are multiple. Think I heard it first on The Times podcast.

Do you have a link?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

J Dory wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

J Dory wrote:
Care to share your sauces?

They are multiple. Think I heard it first on The Times podcast.

Do you have a link?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

It’s meant to be Owen Farrell but he’s punch drunk and can’t pass off his left even when not.

The podcast is called The Ruck but I think the claim was repeated in print today. I’ll have a look and get back to you. Will be behind paywall, though.

Digby wrote:Well the rules do say if a game isn't played it'll be recorded as a draw, the team either know this or didn't look, to complain after the event falls into the category known as pathetic. Now okay they might not have been able to effect change had they lobbied for it ahead of the event, but if they didn't even try it's too late to complain now.

What was Italy to do before the event? Threaten to boycott the competition unless truly robust arrangements were in place?

And one has to suspect that had a big team (or the hosts) been in such a position, an alternative would have been found. Are we seriously suggesting that in parts of Japan not in the path of the typhoon (ie most of the country) there isn't a suitable pitch available?

This is utterly ridiculous. Italy losing the opportunity to survive their pool - even if it required beating NZ - is unnacceptable. If Scotland go out the same way over a winnable match against Japan, it's even more so. It makes a joke of the competition. The Italians (and - if it comes to it - the Scots) will feel cheated. That's because they are being cheated.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Well the rules do say if a game isn't played it'll be recorded as a draw, the team either know this or didn't look, to complain after the event falls into the category known as pathetic. Now okay they might not have been able to effect change had they lobbied for it ahead of the event, but if they didn't even try it's too late to complain now.

What was Italy to do before the event? Threaten to boycott the competition unless truly robust arrangements were in place?

And one has to suspect that had a big team (or the hosts) been in such a position, an alternative would have been found. Are we seriously suggesting that in parts of Japan not in the path of the typhoon (ie most of the country) there isn't a suitable pitch available?

This is utterly ridiculous. Italy losing the opportunity to survive their pool - even if it required beating NZ - is unnacceptable. If Scotland go out the same way over a winnable match against Japan, it's even more so. It makes a joke of the competition. The Italians (and - if it comes to it - the Scots) will feel cheated. That's because they are being cheated.

Italy should have raised the point some while back and lobbied to bring others on board with their concerns with intent to say group matches, or perhaps deciding group matches should be afforded the same status as knock out games. If they didn't more fool them, or indeed anyone hit in this mess. Nobody is suggesting there aren't other pitches available, simply that moving and/or delaying games brings other concerns, clearly people rank those concerns differently, such is life.

I'm some sympathy with the notion that it's not an issue because it's Italy and Scotland at risk and more would be done if it were NZ, but it's not new to rugby that a penalty not only needs to see an offence but also be material

Digby wrote:

J Dory wrote:Cheslin Kolbe, how good is he? Cant wait to see what he does next.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Is this you getting a shoutout?

Nope, my virginity remains intact.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Well the rules do say if a game isn't played it'll be recorded as a draw, the team either know this or didn't look, to complain after the event falls into the category known as pathetic. Now okay they might not have been able to effect change had they lobbied for it ahead of the event, but if they didn't even try it's too late to complain now.

What was Italy to do before the event? Threaten to boycott the competition unless truly robust arrangements were in place?

And one has to suspect that had a big team (or the hosts) been in such a position, an alternative would have been found. Are we seriously suggesting that in parts of Japan not in the path of the typhoon (ie most of the country) there isn't a suitable pitch available?

This is utterly ridiculous. Italy losing the opportunity to survive their pool - even if it required beating NZ - is unnacceptable. If Scotland go out the same way over a winnable match against Japan, it's even more so. It makes a joke of the competition. The Italians (and - if it comes to it - the Scots) will feel cheated. That's because they are being cheated.

In addition, the IRB have talked a very good game about alternative arrangements and contingencies so far, suggesting that they were ready to go when there were earlier games threatened by typhoons that never arrived. The impression has been given that cancelling would be a last resort.

Puja

This is a motherfucking super typhoon bitches, motherfucking super typhoon. Forbes reporting Scotland match is cancelled, though I suspect that's just sloppy journalism as I haven't seen it anywhere else.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesasqui ... fa8878676c

Depending on who you read/speak/listen to it’s the biggest for 17/20/25 years.
It’s a bruiser. If Japan is Billy Vunipola then this typhoon is the Tongan bloke who absolutely levelled him.
Fingers crossed everyone stays safe.

J Dory wrote:This is a motherfucking super typhoon bitches, motherfucking super typhoon. Forbes reporting Scotland match is cancelled, though I suspect that's just sloppy journalism as I haven't seen it anywhere else.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesasqui ... fa8878676c

That is one of the things you'd wonder about that might give more people pause for thought, are we really suggesting we should be contacting the police et al and saying hello we need some help changing when we want to play some rugby games trust you've nothing more important to be thinking about.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Well the rules do say if a game isn't played it'll be recorded as a draw, the team either know this or didn't look, to complain after the event falls into the category known as pathetic. Now okay they might not have been able to effect change had they lobbied for it ahead of the event, but if they didn't even try it's too late to complain now.

What was Italy to do before the event? Threaten to boycott the competition unless truly robust arrangements were in place?

And one has to suspect that had a big team (or the hosts) been in such a position, an alternative would have been found. Are we seriously suggesting that in parts of Japan not in the path of the typhoon (ie most of the country) there isn't a suitable pitch available?

This is utterly ridiculous. Italy losing the opportunity to survive their pool - even if it required beating NZ - is unnacceptable. If Scotland go out the same way over a winnable match against Japan, it's even more so. It makes a joke of the competition. The Italians (and - if it comes to it - the Scots) will feel cheated. That's because they are being cheated.

Italy should have raised the point some while back and lobbied to bring others on board with their concerns with intent to say group matches, or perhaps deciding group matches should be afforded the same status as knock out games. If they didn't more fool them, or indeed anyone hit in this mess. Nobody is suggesting there aren't other pitches available, simply that moving and/or delaying games brings other concerns, clearly people rank those concerns differently, such is life.

I'm struggling to understand the other concerns, particularly if the match were to be played to an empty stadium.

I'm some sympathy with the notion that it's not an issue because it's Italy and Scotland at risk and more would be done if it were NZ, but it's not new to rugby that a penalty not only needs to see an offence but also be material

Imagine, just for a moment, if this was not Italy or Scotland but England going out because their matches with Tonga and USA were cancelled. Just try to picture that and how it would make you feel.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Imagine, just for a moment, if this was not Italy or Scotland but England going out because their matches with Tonga and USA were cancelled. Just try to picture that and how it would make you feel.

I don't need to imagine, I know what it feels like to go out in the group stages when not putting a performance in. It's tough, get over it.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I'm struggling to understand the other concerns, particularly if the match were to be played to an empty stadium.

You'd still need security/police involvement and we don't know just what the impact of the typhoon might be. And then there are commercial concerns around shifting the schedule to get TV coverage, for instance in the UK there's a decent chance Coronation Street is a good deal more important than the rugby, given I've not seen an episdode of Corrie this century (and so far as I recall only one last century) for all I know that's a valid point, and there would be concerns about games being played in empty stadiums and what sponsors and TV companies would make of that, and many other concerns beyond

I do get you prioritise the playing of the match, but whether you don't accept other concerns or simply rank them far lower in importance isn't the be all. That said I'm not wedded to either side of the argument, I wouldn't be kicking up a fuss if they did move the games around geographically, but for myself I'd be unhappy if they started moving England games forwards or backwards, but I'm accepting too there are competing forces and I don't have all the facts in front of me, and might be ill placed to consider a response even if I had the all the inputs

Digby wrote:

J Dory wrote:This is a motherfucking super typhoon bitches, motherfucking super typhoon. Forbes reporting Scotland match is cancelled, though I suspect that's just sloppy journalism as I haven't seen it anywhere else.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesasqui ... fa8878676c

That is one of the things you'd wonder about that might give more people pause for thought, are we really suggesting we should be contacting the police et al and saying hello we need some help changing when we want to play some rugby games trust you've nothing more important to be thinking about.

Are there suddenly more police et al for the knockout matches? Allegedly, all matches in the knockout rounds have contingency plans in place.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

J Dory wrote:This is a motherfucking super typhoon bitches, motherfucking super typhoon. Forbes reporting Scotland match is cancelled, though I suspect that's just sloppy journalism as I haven't seen it anywhere else.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesasqui ... fa8878676c

That is one of the things you'd wonder about that might give more people pause for thought, are we really suggesting we should be contacting the police et al and saying hello we need some help changing when we want to play some rugby games trust you've nothing more important to be thinking about.

Are there suddenly more police et al for the knockout matches? Allegedly, all matches in the knockout rounds have contingency plans in place.

I suspect the difference is fewer games to plan for, so more concrete plans can be set for "these three weekends" as opposed to "an entire month".

Reading about the size of the storm explains why they can't go elsewhere on the same day, but doesn't explain why playing Monday can't be done. It's not ideal, but it does feel better than not playing at all.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
That is one of the things you'd wonder about that might give more people pause for thought, are we really suggesting we should be contacting the police et al and saying hello we need some help changing when we want to play some rugby games trust you've nothing more important to be thinking about.

Are there suddenly more police et al for the knockout matches? Allegedly, all matches in the knockout rounds have contingency plans in place.

I suspect the difference is fewer games to plan for, so more concrete plans can be set for "these three weekends" as opposed to "an entire month".

Reading about the size of the storm explains why they can't go elsewhere on the same day, but doesn't explain why playing Monday can't be done. It's not ideal, but it does feel better than not playing at all.

Puja

I know and I’ve said exactly that elsewhere but this weekend isn’t really that different to next weekend. There are more matches - one on Saturday and two on Sunday - but surely this gives you greater access to stadia. WR must also have realised that there would be, to all intents and purposes, knockout matches this weekend. Japan v Scotland is, England v France could’ve been and still would’ve affected QF seedings. Why not make the same contingencies for those.

The size of the storm makes playing elsewhere a better contingency than postponing. The size isn’t really to do with area covered but with strength of the wind. Most of the country won’t be affected but where it does hit could be incapable of holding a match for days afterwards.