The RugbyRebels Messageboard
http://rugbyrebels.club/
I'd have picked Namibia Vs Canada to give another game to Kamaishi if given a choice. Some good news though as rather than threatening to sue the Canadian players are rolling their sleeves up and getting stuck in with the clear up effort in KamaishiMellsblue wrote:It was the one that needed to go ahead. Very good news.
BarnesEugene Wrayburn wrote:No one, but no one is as bad as Ugo Monye.p/d wrote:The typhoon might have cancelled a few games, but for the love of God the 2 commentating are killing the USA v Tonga game
Dewi MorrisWhich Tyler wrote:BarnesEugene Wrayburn wrote:No one, but no one is as bad as Ugo Monye.p/d wrote:The typhoon might have cancelled a few games, but for the love of God the 2 commentating are killing the USA v Tonga game
Where do these NZ references keep coming from? I heard it was England that complained, now, everyone please repeat that until it becomes accepted fact.Digby wrote:Seemingly the matches didn't get played at another time because that exact concern was cited by NZ. It's entirely understandable NZ and others don't want to change up the scheduling and proceed instead under tournament rules. My preference is some accommodation had been made, providing England didn't lose out (and I'd have accepted other sides seeing a similar compression on the schedule) but that sides have raised objections and wanted to stick with the rules doesn't surprise or perturb meSon of Mathonwy wrote:Okay, neither of us is a security expert but I understand enough to know that an empty stadium requires negligible security compared with one holding 70000 people.Digby wrote:I don't want to comment on what the security requirements would be other than to say I don't know what they might be. And I'm happy to defer in the first instance to the organisers, and I'm also happy in the first instance to disregard people saying it's easy to just move a game
I see two possibilities:
1) it's too difficult to arrange security for a rugby match in an empty stadium
and
2) World Rugby are making excuses for their own incompetence.
For me, 2) is more plausible.
Throughout a tournament where (necessarily) every team has different preparation times from other teams between their matches, you find it particularly objectionable that England should have to play a match a day or two late? I can only say that I'm surprised at your priorities.And as regards moving a game I don't want the schedule moved that in any way compromises England's chances, though I accept the tournament rules are different in the knock-out stages
Mind if England and NZ proceed to the semi-final and that match gets cancelled I suspect we'll hear a lot of whinging from whichever side goes out, would that be based on points scored to date in the tournament? And in future if the sides who were not of a mind to help now get screwed over down the line because of it that's fine too
It was reported by The Times and NZ are well within their rights to do what they did. Stop being so precious.J Dory wrote:Where do these NZ references keep coming from? I heard it was England that complained, now, everyone please repeat that until it becomes accepted fact.Digby wrote:Seemingly the matches didn't get played at another time because that exact concern was cited by NZ. It's entirely understandable NZ and others don't want to change up the scheduling and proceed instead under tournament rules. My preference is some accommodation had been made, providing England didn't lose out (and I'd have accepted other sides seeing a similar compression on the schedule) but that sides have raised objections and wanted to stick with the rules doesn't surprise or perturb meSon of Mathonwy wrote: Okay, neither of us is a security expert but I understand enough to know that an empty stadium requires negligible security compared with one holding 70000 people.
I see two possibilities:
1) it's too difficult to arrange security for a rugby match in an empty stadium
and
2) World Rugby are making excuses for their own incompetence.
For me, 2) is more plausible.
Throughout a tournament where (necessarily) every team has different preparation times from other teams between their matches, you find it particularly objectionable that England should have to play a match a day or two late? I can only say that I'm surprised at your priorities.
Mind if England and NZ proceed to the semi-final and that match gets cancelled I suspect we'll hear a lot of whinging from whichever side goes out, would that be based on points scored to date in the tournament? And in future if the sides who were not of a mind to help now get screwed over down the line because of it that's fine too
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
So where is the link.Mellsblue wrote:It was reported by The Times and NZ are well within their rights to do what they did. Stop being so precious.J Dory wrote:Where do these NZ references keep coming from? I heard it was England that complained, now, everyone please repeat that until it becomes accepted fact.Digby wrote:
Seemingly the matches didn't get played at another time because that exact concern was cited by NZ. It's entirely understandable NZ and others don't want to change up the scheduling and proceed instead under tournament rules. My preference is some accommodation had been made, providing England didn't lose out (and I'd have accepted other sides seeing a similar compression on the schedule) but that sides have raised objections and wanted to stick with the rules doesn't surprise or perturb me
Mind if England and NZ proceed to the semi-final and that match gets cancelled I suspect we'll hear a lot of whinging from whichever side goes out, would that be based on points scored to date in the tournament? And in future if the sides who were not of a mind to help now get screwed over down the line because of it that's fine too
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
It could also be NZ were merely the first side to respond in such fashion, others could well have refused even if NZ had agreed to changeMellsblue wrote:It was reported by The Times and NZ are well within their rights to do what they did. Stop being so precious.J Dory wrote:Where do these NZ references keep coming from? I heard it was England that complained, now, everyone please repeat that until it becomes accepted fact.Digby wrote:
Seemingly the matches didn't get played at another time because that exact concern was cited by NZ. It's entirely understandable NZ and others don't want to change up the scheduling and proceed instead under tournament rules. My preference is some accommodation had been made, providing England didn't lose out (and I'd have accepted other sides seeing a similar compression on the schedule) but that sides have raised objections and wanted to stick with the rules doesn't surprise or perturb me
Mind if England and NZ proceed to the semi-final and that match gets cancelled I suspect we'll hear a lot of whinging from whichever side goes out, would that be based on points scored to date in the tournament? And in future if the sides who were not of a mind to help now get screwed over down the line because of it that's fine too
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Stom wrote:God, the ref is terrible in Scotland Japan
I have better things to do than find it. Plus, it might’ve just been their podcast. I know I said I’d have a look back on Friday but that was whilst looking to waste work’s time, not mine. Use Google but it’ll be behind a paywall. As Diggers said, they might merely have been the first to object. Jones certainly doesn’t seem to mind. As I said, NZ were well within their rights and therefore shouldn’t shoulder any blame.J Dory wrote:So where is the link.Mellsblue wrote:It was reported by The Times and NZ are well within their rights to do what they did. Stop being so precious.J Dory wrote:Where do these NZ references keep coming from? I heard it was England that complained, now, everyone please repeat that until it becomes accepted fact.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Absolutely agree. It's an infuriating penalty to be giving away, especially since the ref is holding on "Biiiind" for ages like he has no idea how hard it is to hold ready for a long period, and I've got absolutely no doubt that Ai Valu is f*cking with him. However, "My opposition player is doing well and keeps luring me into a trap" isn't a good excuse, nor is it reason for open dissent.Renniks wrote:Should be marched back 10m for doing a glasses symbol at the ref there… (Not that kicker would take it)
Such dick behaviour, even if you disagree
Damn you. I came on specifically to write that.Puja wrote:Is it too late for Scotland to ask to have the draw?
Puja
They should just be grateful that they have 15 players on the pitch.Puja wrote:Absolutely agree. It's an infuriating penalty to be giving away, especially since the ref is holding on "Biiiind" for ages like he has no idea how hard it is to hold ready for a long period, and I've got absolutely no doubt that Ai Valu is f*cking with him. However, "My opposition player is doing well and keeps luring me into a trap" isn't a good excuse, nor is it reason for open dissent.Renniks wrote:Should be marched back 10m for doing a glasses symbol at the ref there… (Not that kicker would take it)
Such dick behaviour, even if you disagree
Puja
So doesn't exist, aka you're full of shit.Mellsblue wrote:I have better things to do than find it. Plus, it might’ve just been their podcast. I know I said I’d have a look back on Friday but that was whilst looking to waste work’s time, not mine. Use Google but it’ll be behind a paywall. As Diggers said, they might merely have been the first to object. Jones certainly doesn’t seem to mind. As I said, NZ were well within their rights and therefore shouldn’t shoulder any blame.J Dory wrote:So where is the link.Mellsblue wrote: It was reported by The Times and NZ are well within their rights to do what they did. Stop being so precious.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
I waste enough time on here as it is. I’m not spending anymore time on it because you’re too lazy to look for it. I couldn’t care less if you don’t believe me.J Dory wrote:So doesn't exist, aka you're full of shit.Mellsblue wrote:I have better things to do than find it. Plus, it might’ve just been their podcast. I know I said I’d have a look back on Friday but that was whilst looking to waste work’s time, not mine. Use Google but it’ll be behind a paywall. As Diggers said, they might merely have been the first to object. Jones certainly doesn’t seem to mind. As I said, NZ were well within their rights and therefore shouldn’t shoulder any blame.J Dory wrote:So where is the link.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk