Cape Town Sevens

After seeing that quarter final i have no doubt World rugby has a number of very serious concerns to address. A final kickoff by the South Africans in the last few seconds of the game did not go the full 10 meters with no reaction from the referee. Instead he allowed the clock to run down and blew full time on the game. The fact that Fiji were playing the South African for a start is a surprise considering they should have finished top of their pool (on points differential compared to the Canadians who got the more favourable quarter final against easy beats the French)
If there are two crucial points to takeaway from this tournament they are further evidence of the Corruption that South Africa now finds its self riddled with. Secondly the fact that Fiji were placed second in their pool with a clear points differential advantage adds further credence to the possibility that the corruption is creeping into World rugby, the fact that it is this obvious is a real SHAME as far as rugby union is concerned.

2.1.3 In the event of two or more teams being equal on competition points for any position in the pool table the higher placed team will be determined using the following sequence:

1)If two teams are involved and have played each other, the
winning team will take the higher position. If more than two
teams have equal points this rule will not apply.

2)The margin of points scored for and against a team in all pool
matches shall be considered. The team with the highest
positive margin of points shall be ranked higher in the pool
table. In the event that the tie remains unsolved then;

3)The team that scores the most tries in all pool matches shall
be ranked higher in the pool table. In the event that the tie
remains unsolved then;

4)The team that scores the most points in all pool matches shall
be ranked higher in the pool table. In the event that the tie
remains unsolved then;

5) The team that concedes the least points in all pool matches
shall be ranked higher in the pool table. In the event that
the tie still remains unresolved then;

6)If teams are still tied after all the above, the winner will
be decided by the toss of a coin between the Managers of the
teams concerned.

Rule 1 applies.

Canada beat Fiji.

Canada top the group.

Rule 2: Read the rules.

The margin of points scored for and against a team in all pool
matches shall be considered. The team with the highest
positive margin of points shall be ranked higher in the pool
table. In the event that the tie remains unsolved then;

- the points differential favoured Fiji, they should have been top of the pool. Subsequently they should have had a quarter final against France NOT S/Africa

So just a wum then.

Straight on the foe list I am afraid. And I don't even have Gwlad on that

rugbybanter wrote:The margin of points scored for and against a team in all pool
matches shall be considered. The team with the highest
positive margin of points shall be ranked higher in the pool
table. In the event that the tie remains unsolved then;

- the points differential favoured Fiji, they should have been top of the pool. Subsequently they should have had a quarter final against France NOT S/Africa

Are you telling me you are unable to see that the first criteria applies? If more than two teams had been tied then yes they should move on to the second criteria that you quote. However only Canada and Fiji tied therefore criteria 1 applies and Canada won the head to head.

Please let me know if the actual facts and rules are important to you. I would quite like to know if I am banging my head against a brick wall.

points differential should ultimately determine position on table and it would ultimately mean only 1 rule is applicable in this case being that after round robin round if more than one team is equal on points standing their respective positions will be decided by points differential. Having more than one rule in this case just makes it easier for teams to drop a game to secure a desired outcome (for themselves or the other team) in the latter stages of the tournament.

Except there couldn't only be one rule else what happens if both teams ended in the same points. Anyway glad you understand the current rules on this and acknowledge your mistake.

you wouldn't have a situation where both teams ended up with the same points after a series of round robin pool games. In effect what you are trying to say is that more than one team would score exactly the same number of points for and against in all their pool games? Probably 1 in a million odds of that happening, if it came down to it they would play golden point rule, first team to score a try wins the pool,simplified, easily solved.

I think World Rugby could do themselves a favour and simpify the ambiguity surrounding the over stated interpretation of the laws of the game as it exists in 2017. It would be for the betterment of the game overall and perhaps might restore some confidence in the sport!

You don't know what a round robin is either then.

semantics
sɪˈmantɪks/Submit
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.
the meaning of a word, phrase, or text.
plural noun: semantics
"such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"




No 7& 1/2 TAKE NOTE OF LAST WORDS..... (is that No or number?? just wanted to clarify..cough)

Yes you struggle with the meaning of words.

any in particular that you wish to point out?

round robin - (N) Noun " competitor plays in turn against every other". Now somehow try to make association of this noun within the context of the discussion we are having about a tournament which has several pools ....what do you get?? Round robin within each pool you fool not a round robin of sorts where every pool plays every other pool. You seem dead set on creating nonsensical fuss over trivial semantic banter instead of getting on with the discussion. Would that be a fair assumption to make?

No. It's quite clear that after only a handful of games teams can end up on the same points etc so you have to have more than one rule. Are you just upset that you didn't look up the actual competition rules before pointing the finger?

rugbybanter wrote:round robin - (N) Noun " competitor plays in turn against every other". Now somehow try to make association of this noun within the context of the discussion we are having about a tournament which has several pools ....what do you get?? Round robin within each pool you fool not a round robin of sorts where every pool plays every other pool. You seem dead set on creating nonsensical fuss over trivial semantic banter instead of getting on with the discussion. Would that be a fair assumption to make?

 Then again sevens and tens tournaments have been going for years , Do you not think that all the permutations havent arisen before? hence the reason for the variations of rules to address different out comes, especially when two teams meet at a later stage in a tournament on paper but have also met previously on the field.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

rugbybanter wrote:round robin - (N) Noun " competitor plays in turn against every other". Now somehow try to make association of this noun within the context of the discussion we are having about a tournament which has several pools ....what do you get?? Round robin within each pool you fool not a round robin of sorts where every pool plays every other pool. You seem dead set on creating nonsensical fuss over trivial semantic banter instead of getting on with the discussion. Would that be a fair assumption to make?

 Then again sevens and tens tournaments have been going for years , Do you not think that all the permutations havent arisen before? hence the reason for the variations of rules to address different out comes, especially when two teams meet at a later stage in a tournament on paper but have also met previously on the field.

Spot on, Laurie. The Word Sevens Series alone plays 450 matches a year. Law changes get stress-tested very quickly, because there so many opportunities for unexpected situations to crop up. That goes for how tournaments are best structured. Everything gets regularly reviewed in Sevens to see if it produces good outcomes.

quite the opposite i dont "need" to look up the rules. My point is simply this: It is obvious in any case that you wouldn't have a single rule , otherwise every second tournament would end up progressing no further than the pool stage. HOWEVER, if you have too many rules within the rules it takes the focus off the purpose of having those rules for a start and that is the GAME itsself. The rule book isn't the game , unfortunately it seems some would prefer it that way! I hope you can appreciate this view for what it is rather than what you see it as.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. It's quite clear that after only a handful of games teams can end up on the same points etc so you have to have more than one rule. Are you just upset that you didn't look up the actual competition rules before pointing the finger?

rugbybanter wrote:quite the opposite i dont "need" to look up the rules.

If you had looked up the rules, you wouldn't have got it wrong about how the order in Fiji's pool was decided.

And without a rule for all possibilities world rugby and other organisations running rugby comps wouldn't be doing their job properly.

Unfortunately what we have seen is an expanding game that is lever'd against a set of revised rules to accomodate that expansion. The net result is that it is failing to address some critical issues surrounding key aspects of the "bigger picture". Rugby like any other sports comprises many facets in its structure, the administration more notably has not developed the sport to suit the modern game as it should be played. A combination of factors assist in making this possible one of which is officiating. Too many officials are now part of what should be a fairly streamlined straight foward process in several areas of the game. One example is referees. 10 years ago a top level test referee was given 80 minutes to ensure the rules of the game were followed , occasionally seeking clarification from a touch judge when in doubt. Now you have referees who either barely understand the rules of the game or turn a convenient blind eye on the premise that a match official will provide the solution via video replay. Where the rule book clearly states that video officials can only be used to assist in foul play or where a try is in doubt they are now interfering in all other facets of play to the extent that match referees seem to doubt their own decisions as they see fit on the field of play. A simple solution would be to improve the level of knowledge that match officials have on the field and increase the number of officials on the field (ie have an additional 6 touch officials to eliminate any doubt on the field before it is taken to a video official. That way the game will flow alot more freely and the the crowd can enjoy a better spectacle.

Kind of getting away from corruption now then and just not wanting to use technology. Fair enough.

rugbybanter wrote:Unfortunately what we have seen....

What does any of that have to do with Sevens rugby?

Rugby Fan wrote:

rugbybanter wrote:Unfortunately what we have seen....

What does any of that have to do with Sevens rugby?

 And in particular Fiji at the Cape town sevens a couple of weeks ago?

 Howwever RB You do make a valid point about referees abdicating their responsibilities to often less knowledgable TMOs, luckily for the vast majority of us we are not involved in televised games.

The power is in the broadcast rights and the more exclusive the better. New niche will be found for the exclusive holders not in streamed, wireless accessed content of live sports but a subscribed offering that isn't susceptible to massive distribution across multiple channels. Tech' is wonderful in that it allows the viewership to choose from a plethora of content, the problem unfortunately is that the majority of this glut is substandard and the remainder has eroded the value of what original content there is remaining. The exclusive holders realise the future of live sports is not in a dongle but in new exclusive hardware combined with newer transmission tech to ensure an exclusive high quality exclusive viewing experience! The internet of content is fast becoming a cyber junk domain..

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

rugbybanter wrote:Unfortunately what we have seen....

What does any of that have to do with Sevens rugby?

 And in particular Fiji at the Cape town sevens a couple of weeks ago?

 Howwever RB You do make a valid point about referees abdicating their responsibilities to often less knowledgable TMOs, luckily for the vast majority of us we are not involved in televised games.

as for the other question re sevens, I believe a win is a win in any case as far as merit on the rugby field is concerned if two teams both end up with the same number of victories after pool play it should come down to points aggregate as first priority (after all tries being scored is the reason people watch the game so give it the priority it deserves in determining the outcome of those that progress into the latter stages of the tournament), not the team that won out of the two head to head in pool play as this just encourages either to drop a game in order to secure a favourable position in the next round. The difference between rugby and soccer is that a goalie in soccer can make a goal look unfortunate. In rugby the player with the ball will end up on the sideline if he cant score tries or kick points!

It doesn't in this case as all teams knew before the games. You didn't hence your confusion and accusations of corruption which were obviously misplaced and from a place of ignorance. Merry Christmas.

I am disappointed that you are still of the mind set that I have mentioned corruption anywhere as a word or have implied that that is the case. A "backhander" can be interpreted in many ways it just so happens you (not I) have chosen to interpret it that way. Furthermore if you see my opinion as "ignorant" that is simply your view and cant be said to be shared by anyone other than yourself. As for the remainder I hope world rugby has the foresight to get the infrastructure right before the game is taken to the next level!

rugbybanter wrote:I am disappointed that you are still of the mind set that I have mentioned corruption anywhere as a word or have implied that that is the case.

From your original post

rugbybanter wrote:...If there are two crucial points to takeaway from this tournament they are further evidence of the Corruption that South Africa now finds its self riddled with. Secondly the fact that Fiji were placed second in their pool with a clear points differential advantage adds further credence to the possibility that the corruption is creeping into World rugby, the fact that it is this obvious is a real SHAME as far as rugby union is concerned.

we were talking specifically about the backhander thread comment, not the S African comment. Go back and follow the sequence of discussion. Unfortunately S African rugby finds its self in a situation where it cant get the best players on the field due to an internal bias ! Now that Coetzee' job is getting moved along they might overlook this bias in favour of choosing players that are the best fit and have suitable ability

rugbybanter wrote:we were talking specifically about the backhander thread comment, not the S African comment. Go back and follow the sequence of discussion. Unfortunately S African rugby finds its self in a situation where it cant get the best players on the field due to an internal bias ! Now that Coetzee' job is getting moved along they might overlook this bias in favour of choosing players that are the best fit and have suitable ability

 Did you actually read Fugbyfans post? the one composed of quotes from you.

Boy, this thread wont make the all time top five. Seems it took a loooong time to get nowhere over nothing. Merry Xmas all.

RB really isn't worth it. He makes less sense than Gwlad.

All the SANZAR Unions need to be re- strengthened. In the Northern Hemisphere England and France need to get back to their traditional rivalry and ensure their respective teams are solid at the core (from a selectors perspective). Only that way will World Rugby progress successfully!

Must be an intentionally dumb set of posts?

intentionally dumb. That's great use of the English language!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Must be an intentionally dumb set of posts?

They should be encouraged to score as many points as possible in the game of sevens. It will be interesting to see how they simplify the rule book as they have indicated they will do. I imagine it will cut down on a lot of the clutter that i have alluded to in the comments above. Sevens is purely a social spectacle when it comes to rugby. People attend the tournaments to enjoy themselves and to watch two teams attempt to cross each others try line as many times as possible as quickly as possible. 15 a side rugby differs in that there is a lot more structure to the game and the skill level requirement a little more advanced as 15 players use more strategy/tactical nous' over 80 minutes of rugby. Those that have played rugby union and appreciate the game will tell you that the attempts to expand the game on a globally have meant adjustments to the game NOT because there is a desire to speed the game up BUT because of the fact that many of the new teams  (both club and international) who are seeking to advance themselves in the rankings simply do not possess the natural skill required to play the game as it was intended to be played. Key facets of the game such as set pieces (scrums and lineouts) were once the domain of very skilled specialists in key positions. In positional play  props would battle for supremacy in a scrum engagement (it didnt matter if they had to reset the scrum 20 times) and the crowd hummed and harr'd as each successive scrum took its due course, Hookers battled for a clean sweep, Locks were the engine house of the scrum. Mid field backs were fleet footed individuals that danced their way downfield with graceful agility. Wingers were elusive and slick in finishing a set move in the corner. All of this added up to a display of skill at the highest level particularly in top level Internationals. Unfortunately the globalization of the game has seen it lose that edginess of finesse that it once had and in lieu we have 15 players all doing the same thing and a bunch of incompetent officials trying to hurry them up in the process. Rugby has lost its class as far as being a sport where passionate rugby men displayed skills like no other game has seen. Rugby is not a game that needs to attract a wide audience. Those that understand it well enough realise that the business of rugby union has a particular consumer that understands its product and like any other business if it is oversold and under delivered it soon loses a very special type of appeal that was built on a passionate tradition of sorts!

So where was the corruption with the tournament or was it down to you not knowing the rules?

go back and watch a replay of every game of the tournament . The watch a replay of the same thing that was broadcast on a different platform. Then you will understand what I am talking about. Only until then will you remain as confused as you are about what i am alluding to!

Ypu could forego alluding to somthing and just state ot clearly though. What corruption do sa find itself in with this tournament and why does er following the rules and not changing them to allow Fiji a higher placing post results mean that corruption took place.

you are still tangled up in the semantics of the original text in order to prove your silly point. I can clearly see you don't understand the complexities of the global game as they exist today and not really interested in explaining it to you in any further detail

What was the corruption though? That'd a pretty big deal if true. Seems to be more you made an error though?