***England v France - MATCH CANCELLED***

First topic message reminder :

MATCH CANCELLED  Result in the book is 0-0.

Massive disappointment all round.

Was looking forward to witnessing two teams try their hardest not to win the pool and have the easier route to the Final.
As it is England finish on top and now face a massive challenge to overcome to make the final.

Can't help but think dark forces are at work to scupper our chances of lifting the Webb Ellis Cup again.

This is farcical but I guess you can't blame anyone for what has happened

I feel sorry for all the French fans who travelled and had tickets for the match but now them and England get a one less game and more time to prepare for the quarter finals while Wales and Australia had to battle it out in Tokyo to see who won the group

I assume Wales v Uruguay is still set to go ahead?

As a side note, just gutted to see less rugby now, with this game being one of them. Would have been an interesting game seeing England go up against a pack that is probably their physical equal in terms of bulk.

miaow wrote:As a side note, just gutted to see less rugby now, with this game being one of them. Would have been an interesting game seeing England go up against a pack that is probably their physical equal in terms of bulk.

I think it was the only time I can remember recently where I was going to be cheering on England against France

Hope Scotland v Japan goes ahead though

robbo277 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

robbo277 wrote:No-one gets eliminated because of a cancelled pool game. You get awarded 2 points. If that's not enough to see you through, look at your performances in the other pool games first.

Not really true. You could be all set to be runners up in the pool with a game against Canada, Namibia etc last and be thrown out.

Right, so South Africa played Canada in their last game. If that was rained out, they would have been on 12 points, with NZ on 14 and Italy on 10. Had Italy then beat New Zealand, yes, South Africa would have been eliminated. But they would have been in that situation because they lost to NZ - a team Italy had then beat.

South Africa weren't qualified before the NZ vs Italy game was rained out. There was a mathematical chance they could have been eliminated even after they took the 5 points against Canada. If you don't win all your games, it's not always in your hands. If you win all your games (as NZ, England and France did), you can suffer one washout and still qualify.

Since we're playing hypotheticals, let's go with a more likely one. Italy don't get a player sent off, storm back in the second half against SA, briefly take the lead but ultimately lose by less than 7, denying SA a 4th try. Both teams are on 11 points. Italy get a single losing bonus point from the NZ game and NZ and Italy knock the Boks out despite Italy losing 2 games to SA's 1.

There is no way - literally no way - to justify any team going out as 'fair' due to a cancelled game, unfortunately. Fair it is not.

Pal Joey wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Farcical situation. Move the game for god sake, dont cancel it. At the last RWC Ireland picked up 4 injuries and 1 suspension after playing France in our last pool game. Giving teams a week off makes a mockery of this tournament.

The game wasn't under threat two days ago, then the typhoon shifted. "Just move it" is the equivalent of saying "get Brexit done", it's an outcome which ignores all the complexities of the situation - with a limited timescale available.

This isn't a park game where if your pitch is unplayable you reverse the fixture and drive to the other ground instead. It's the Rugby World Cup.

Its the lesser of two evils to move the game. Fans have traveled from all over the world to go to it, it gives England and France an unfair advantage going into the quarters (no injuries, tiredness nor suspensions) and makes an absolute farce of the competition. Games can be rescheduled to be played during the week in stadia with roofs. For the fans most grounds, unless in Hokkaido or Oita are a short enough shinkansen ride away from the main hubs of Tokyo or Osaka.

Cancelling the Italy game is even worse as Italy technically could have still qualified with a win over NZ. Yep we all know thats highly unlikely but whats the point of putting the two teams in the same group if Italy are knocked out over weather.

You can guarantee that if NZ or England's participation was at stake world rugby would have found a way for the game to go ahead. Its no surprise Italy are absolutely fuming.

The Brexit analogy is really wide of the mark.

Not really. Only 3.5 hours to Oita by Shinkansen/rapid train from Osaka and just over 4 hours to Sapporo from Tokyo.

The Shinkansen I looked at quoted took 8 hours to get to Oita from Osaka. I was thinking of travelling from Osaka to Oita last week to catch NZ play. Anyway I think we are on the same page. It would be easy enough logistically to move the games.

Maybe I was looking at a JR train

The logistics around moving a fixture are more than just saying there is a train service.

1) Moving the teams - including providing hotels and training facilities
2) Finding a stadium that is available and can be prepared without causing knock on delays
3) Moving the fans - assuming you are interested in doing that
4) Doing all of that whilst the country is concentrating more on ensuring that people are not actually travelling, that transport systems are locked down for the sake of lives.

Could they looked to have planned better for this - sure, but always at a cost. Having backups in place for every single match would not come cheap in an overcrowded country like Japan. I know financials are not at the forefronts of our minds, but they are an issue.
Could they have held the tournament at a different time? Yes - February and March would e safe from Typhoons, but maybe not earthquakes. June - August would have (historically) been a bigger risk.
Could they have held it somewhere else? Yes, though remember just 2 days ago people were clamouring that this was the best RWC to date.
Did they take a risk? Yes they did - and when it does not come off it looks stupid, but people take risks all the time and sometimes it backfires.

Sorry if people think I am being glib, and sure if England had lost to Argentina and been knocked out because of this I would feel slightly sore. Yet it is hard not too feel that some people are being over-precious about this. Insistence that Italy have been hard done by are ridiculous. Some players will miss their send off, but Italy were going to get hammered. Not here, but somewhere I have seen ITV described as the big losers because of lost advertising revenues!

It seems that the effects of "Typhoon Haggis" are lessening and the impact on human lives will be much reduced. However that is the major story here, not the disruption to a sports tournament.

The SRU have said that one of the options they are exploring with world rugby is playing the game behind closed doors. There are many ways to skin a cat. To just give up, accept defeat and cancel games is farcical, especially for teams who will be KOd as a result. Years of prep work for nothing. even if you arent KO'd but you finish 2nd instead of first or you get to play less games its still a joke and has too much of a bearing on the RWC.

Big black mark against this RWC for cancelling the England and NZ games IMO. Cheapens their wins too if they do go on to win it.

You would be singing a different tune LT if England needed the win to progress.

Call me a maverick but Rugby is decided on a pitch not in an office, Italy might well have been hammered but that doesn't make it ok to remove their chance of pulling off a shock.

No9 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No9 wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:France will make the final now, 2 weeks prep plus added time to sort out their bust up within the camp. I wouldn't want to play them.

As for England it wouldn't surprise me if the RFU pay for Georgia to come and train with them for a couple of days.

Not a bad idea, if tournament rules permit. But I'd probably go for Fiji rather than Georgia given the likely opponents are Australia.

Rules doesn't permit it. 

Training must be within the squad and only in that squad. Otherwise, what would stop a Tier 1 side taking more players to the tournament stating they where for training purposes and hence then have extra stand in players already there in the event they needed to call up injury replacements.

But those rules should be amended in thsi scenario.....

Yeah.. dont like the rules then change them mid tournament... 

Erm nope! This is unprecendented isnt it? Typhoons forcing games to be cancelled leaving teams in all sorts of situations, not qualifying and without games in two weeks.

So yes in this case...rules should be amended. If teams want to use others as competition then surely that makes sense.

miaow wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

robbo277 wrote:No-one gets eliminated because of a cancelled pool game. You get awarded 2 points. If that's not enough to see you through, look at your performances in the other pool games first.

Not really true. You could be all set to be runners up in the pool with a game against Canada, Namibia etc last and be thrown out.

Right, so South Africa played Canada in their last game. If that was rained out, they would have been on 12 points, with NZ on 14 and Italy on 10. Had Italy then beat New Zealand, yes, South Africa would have been eliminated. But they would have been in that situation because they lost to NZ - a team Italy had then beat.

South Africa weren't qualified before the NZ vs Italy game was rained out. There was a mathematical chance they could have been eliminated even after they took the 5 points against Canada. If you don't win all your games, it's not always in your hands. If you win all your games (as NZ, England and France did), you can suffer one washout and still qualify.

Since we're playing hypotheticals, let's go with a more likely one. Italy don't get a player sent off, storm back in the second half against SA, briefly take the lead but ultimately lose by less than 7, denying SA a 4th try. Both teams are on 11 points. Italy get a single losing bonus point from the NZ game and NZ and Italy knock the Boks out despite Italy losing 2 games to SA's 1.

There is no way - literally no way - to justify any team going out as 'fair' due to a cancelled game, unfortunately. Fair it is not.

Is it really in anyway likely that Italy would get a bonus point against NZ and SA? Their results against the two nations would suggest it isn't. However, my main point is if you win your other 3 games you can absorb a washout. South Africa were precarious either way because of their loss to NZ.

Fair means treating people equally without favour or discrimination. You could claim that the weather is unfair, but it acts without favour or discrimination - it just happens. The only fair thing to do is to follow due process - try and find a new location but if you can't and the pool game can't be played on the day it's scheduled for it's cancelled per the rules.

There is no provision to postpone pool games because there just isn't enough reserved time to meet any eventuality.

Soul Requiem wrote:Call me a maverick but Rugby is decided on a pitch not in an office, Italy might well have been hammered but that doesn't make it ok to remove their chance of pulling off a shock.

Tell that to the typhoon.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No9 wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No9 wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:France will make the final now, 2 weeks prep plus added time to sort out their bust up within the camp. I wouldn't want to play them.

As for England it wouldn't surprise me if the RFU pay for Georgia to come and train with them for a couple of days.

Not a bad idea, if tournament rules permit. But I'd probably go for Fiji rather than Georgia given the likely opponents are Australia.

Rules doesn't permit it. 

Training must be within the squad and only in that squad. Otherwise, what would stop a Tier 1 side taking more players to the tournament stating they where for training purposes and hence then have extra stand in players already there in the event they needed to call up injury replacements.

But those rules should be amended in thsi scenario.....

Yeah.. dont like the rules then change them mid tournament... 

Erm nope! This is unprecendented isnt it? Typhoons forcing games to be cancelled leaving teams in all sorts of situations, not qualifying and without games in two weeks.

So yes in this case...rules should be amended. If teams want to use others as competition then surely that makes sense.  

The rules don't explicitly rule it out, but World Rugby would have to sanction it.

Where there is a will there is always a way. If England, Japan or NZ were about to get dumped out the organizers would find a way to reschedule, same should be afforded to Italy.

Italy were about to get dumped out *anyway*

Their average result against NZ over the last 22 years has been a 50 point loss, I know its disappointing that the game isn't going ahead but no one seriously thinks its made a toss of difference to the knockout stages

Scotland v Japan is the one that matters, if that is played all is forgiven

I think the thing we can hope for is that ireland beat nz convincingly proving that theres no advantage gained on the way to england winning the wc again. Seems the best bet.

If only there were some rugby to distract everyone!

Majority of us are British. We naturally fall back on talking about the weather.

LondonTiger wrote:Sorry if people think I am being glib, and sure if England had lost to Argentina and been knocked out because of this I would feel slightly sore. Yet it is hard not too feel that some people are being over-precious about this. Insistence that Italy have been hard done by are ridiculous. Some players will miss their send off, but Italy were going to get hammered.

Disagree with just about everything you've written here. If England were out on a technicality, English fans would be raging. Also, this tournament shows the importance of not calling games too soon. I've said enough on this, anyway, but to act as if 'well, no harm done, it's just Italy/Scotland/whoever', or that the implications of not playing don't hurt every team in some way, is willfully missing the point.

Despite all the feigned concern for Italy's regular 50 point defeat by the All Blacks, if the Scotland v Japan game goes ahead then there is no problem with the integrity of the tournament.

Anything else is just thinly veiled anger and jealousy at England and NZ getting an extra few days off ahead of the quarter finals

robbo277 wrote:

miaow wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

robbo277 wrote:No-one gets eliminated because of a cancelled pool game. You get awarded 2 points. If that's not enough to see you through, look at your performances in the other pool games first.

Not really true. You could be all set to be runners up in the pool with a game against Canada, Namibia etc last and be thrown out.

Right, so South Africa played Canada in their last game. If that was rained out, they would have been on 12 points, with NZ on 14 and Italy on 10. Had Italy then beat New Zealand, yes, South Africa would have been eliminated. But they would have been in that situation because they lost to NZ - a team Italy had then beat.

South Africa weren't qualified before the NZ vs Italy game was rained out. There was a mathematical chance they could have been eliminated even after they took the 5 points against Canada. If you don't win all your games, it's not always in your hands. If you win all your games (as NZ, England and France did), you can suffer one washout and still qualify.

Since we're playing hypotheticals, let's go with a more likely one. Italy don't get a player sent off, storm back in the second half against SA, briefly take the lead but ultimately lose by less than 7, denying SA a 4th try. Both teams are on 11 points. Italy get a single losing bonus point from the NZ game and NZ and Italy knock the Boks out despite Italy losing 2 games to SA's 1.

There is no way - literally no way - to justify any team going out as 'fair' due to a cancelled game, unfortunately. Fair it is not.

Is it really in anyway likely that Italy would get a bonus point against NZ and SA? Their results against the two nations would suggest it isn't. However, my main point is if you win your other 3 games you can absorb a washout. South Africa were precarious either way because of their loss to NZ.

Fair means treating people equally without favour or discrimination. You could claim that the weather is unfair, but it acts without favour or discrimination - it just happens. The only fair thing to do is to follow due process - try and find a new location but if you can't and the pool game can't be played on the day it's scheduled for it's cancelled per the rules.

There is no provision to postpone pool games because there just isn't enough reserved time to meet any eventuality.

Yes, it is in a lot of ways likely. My point was you're trying to ascribe fairness to this situation, which is quite literally not fair in anyway. Sport isn't fair, of course - but usually that occurs on the field of play. Or off the field as teams/nations/unions try to gain an 'edge'. The lack of fairness is not something systemic from the governing body - that's not acceptable in the slightest. We'll never know, but it would have been very, very interesting if one of the big heavyweights - namely NZ and England - had been in position to get knocked out through cancellation. Would it have happened? Who knows.

I understand all the practical points - it's desperate stuff, and I'm not about to go full Brexiteer on here and declare it a farce/shambles/something MUST be done/think of the children. No point pointing the finger aimlessly from the sidelines at anyone with authroity, without any knowledge of what they've been through in the last week.

I do think other alternatives were available, and could have happened if they'd really, really wanted them to (which is why the NZ/England question is interesting) but perhaps this is the best option.

My point was your assertion that there's somehow 'justice' to all of this - that losing 1 game early on, or having the (supposedly) random fall of fixtures come back to hurt you in terms of qualifying position, wheter 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, is in any shape or form 'deserved' or 'fair'. That's monumentally off the mark and feels like you're trying hard to make sense of something which cannot be made 'fair', at all.

BamBam wrote:Despite all the feigned concern for Italy's regular 50 point defeat by the All Blacks, if the Scotland v Japan game goes ahead then there is no problem with the integrity of the tournament.

Anything else is just thinly veiled anger and jealousy at England and NZ getting an extra few days off ahead of the quarter finals

Nope. All you're doing is revealing your own value system there. Odd.

BamBam wrote:Despite all the feigned concern for Italy's regular 50 point defeat by the All Blacks, if the Scotland v Japan game goes ahead then there is no problem with the integrity of the tournament.

Anything else is just thinly veiled anger and jealousy at England and NZ getting an extra few days off ahead of the quarter finals

I didn't foresee Sonny Bill Williams getting himself sent off in 2017 but he did.

We are where we are. Everyone knew, or could/should have known the rules. Same with the risks. Plenty of time to complain before and be satisfied.

miaow wrote:

BamBam wrote:Despite all the feigned concern for Italy's regular 50 point defeat by the All Blacks, if the Scotland v Japan game goes ahead then there is no problem with the integrity of the tournament.

Anything else is just thinly veiled anger and jealousy at England and NZ getting an extra few days off ahead of the quarter finals

Nope. All you're doing is revealing your own value system there. Odd.

Odd is Collapse on another thread lamenting the missed opportunity for Billy V or Manu to get injured against France

Everyone knows Italy would have got battered, so what's the issue if Scotland v Japan goes ahead?

miaow wrote:Yes, it is in a lot of ways likely. My point was you're trying to ascribe fairness to this situation, which is quite literally not fair in anyway. Sport isn't fair, of course - but usually that occurs on the field of play. Or off the field as teams/nations/unions try to gain an 'edge'. The lack of fairness is not something systemic from the governing body - that's not acceptable in the slightest. We'll never know, but it would have been very, very interesting if one of the big heavyweights - namely NZ and England - had been in position to get knocked out through cancellation. Would it have happened? Who knows.

I understand all the practical points - it's desperate stuff, and I'm not about to go full Brexiteer on here and declare it a farce/shambles/something MUST be done/think of the children. No point pointing the finger aimlessly from the sidelines at anyone with authroity, without any knowledge of what they've been through in the last week.

I do think other alternatives were available, and could have happened if they'd really, really wanted them to (which is why the NZ/England question is interesting) but perhaps this is the best option.

My point was your assertion that there's somehow 'justice' to all of this - that losing 1 game early on, or having the (supposedly) random fall of fixtures come back to hurt you in terms of qualifying position, wheter 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, is in any shape or form 'deserved' or 'fair'. That's monumentally off the mark and feels like you're trying hard to make sense of something which cannot be made 'fair', at all.

Fairness is an odd concept when you have something like the weather acting asymmetrically. Let's say we postpone England vs France until Monday, what would you have done had England vs Tonga been written off instead? There's no time between then and now to have played the game, the earliest conceivable time to play it would be Wednesday but that would leave no time to recover before a potential quarter final on Saturday. Is there fairness in that? That one pool match can be rearranged but another can't?

Would there be outcry if it was Namibia vs Canada and USA vs Tonga being written off - with those matches exclusively between teams that have been eliminated? Or is it just because it impacts qualification and teams continuing in the tournament?

World Rugby have said there is no room in the schedule to postpone pool games and have made a rule to that effect. The game can be delayed (same day) but not postponed (new day). The weather has now acted asymmetrically, is it more fair to change the rules or stick to them? No-one has acted to favour England, France or New Zealand or discriminate against Italy, Wales or Australia, it's just luck. Changing the rules to try and level the playing field is a noble cause, but ultimately it wouldn't be fair.

You can say the rules are wrong in the first place and that may be another debate. But unless they're going to build in more reserve time during the pool stages then you cannot allow postponements in the pool stage.

robbo277 wrote:

miaow wrote:Yes, it is in a lot of ways likely. My point was you're trying to ascribe fairness to this situation, which is quite literally not fair in anyway. Sport isn't fair, of course - but usually that occurs on the field of play. Or off the field as teams/nations/unions try to gain an 'edge'. The lack of fairness is not something systemic from the governing body - that's not acceptable in the slightest. We'll never know, but it would have been very, very interesting if one of the big heavyweights - namely NZ and England - had been in position to get knocked out through cancellation. Would it have happened? Who knows.

I understand all the practical points - it's desperate stuff, and I'm not about to go full Brexiteer on here and declare it a farce/shambles/something MUST be done/think of the children. No point pointing the finger aimlessly from the sidelines at anyone with authroity, without any knowledge of what they've been through in the last week.

I do think other alternatives were available, and could have happened if they'd really, really wanted them to (which is why the NZ/England question is interesting) but perhaps this is the best option.

My point was your assertion that there's somehow 'justice' to all of this - that losing 1 game early on, or having the (supposedly) random fall of fixtures come back to hurt you in terms of qualifying position, wheter 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, is in any shape or form 'deserved' or 'fair'. That's monumentally off the mark and feels like you're trying hard to make sense of something which cannot be made 'fair', at all.

Would there be outcry if it was Namibia vs Canada and USA vs Tonga being written off - with those matches exclusively between teams that have been eliminated? Or is it just because it impacts qualification and teams continuing in the tournament?

No ****, imagine a sports fan caring about such a thing.

'Is it really in anyway likely that Italy would get a bonus point against NZ and SA?'

'Everyone knows Italy would have got battered'

You two are a pair of merkins. What about the previous SA v Japan? What about the recent Ireland v Japan? What about Uruguay v Fiji? What's the point of a World Cup in this format? Do you want to just pick the top 2 ranked teams and have a final? Eedjits.

The games cannot be played safely. Direct any complaints you have directly to the typhoon.

You may not like World Rugby's response, but it's fair, equitable and by the book.

I'm done with this discussion now.

BamBam wrote:

miaow wrote:

BamBam wrote:Despite all the feigned concern for Italy's regular 50 point defeat by the All Blacks, if the Scotland v Japan game goes ahead then there is no problem with the integrity of the tournament.

Anything else is just thinly veiled anger and jealousy at England and NZ getting an extra few days off ahead of the quarter finals

Nope. All you're doing is revealing your own value system there. Odd.

Odd is Collapse on another thread lamenting the missed opportunity for Billy V or Manu to get injured against France

Everyone knows Italy would have got battered, so what's the issue if Scotland v Japan goes ahead?

No its odd that you are completely re-framing what I said to make it look like I would like to see people get injured. Some really stupid comments from you here, barely worth responding to.

The games cannot be played safely yes they can. another place another time. Direct any complaints you have directly to the typhoon.that would be silly

You may not like World Rugby's response, but it's fair, equitable and by the book.fair and equitable mean the same thing, by saying it twice, doesn't make it right. by the book maybe, but the book in this case in very unsporting. unsporting in a huge sporting event

I'm done with this discussion now.good man

Hey now, I'd say there was a likelihood of NZ having man red carded, then it's game on for Italy .

robbo277 wrote:The games cannot be played safely. Direct any complaints you have directly to the typhoon.

You may not like World Rugby's response, but it's fair, equitable and by the book.

I'm done with this discussion now.

What, you mean ask the typhoon to go away? Why didn't the world cup organisers think of that....

Seriously, that wasn't anyone's point. Our point was that they knew this world cup would be hosted during typhoon season. They should have had contingencies in place to afford a rescheduled match for all teams. World Cup games should never be cancelled.

This discussion has become pointless because it's become about big bad England and New Zealand getting the lucky break, rather than looking at the organisers focusing on the number 1 priority of getting Japan v Scotland played 

Maybe World Rugby and the bid team could have had a better contingency plan, but those are learnings for the future. It's a 1400km wide typhoon covering the vast majority of the country, there are limited opportunities for contingency anyway

The final can't be pushed back because the European clubs would not be happy. Assuming that is a fixed date, your only option is to cancel dead rubber games or go for very short turnarounds between knockout games, along with the added organisational stresses 

I know which I'd prefer, but I'll bow out of the discussion now

The only thing to do that is fair is to follow the pre-prescribed rules.

Anything other than that, can be seen as favouring one team or another, regardless of who they are.

I can understand the desire to have all games played, but if it is too dangerous to play them, then it carries that there is a risk to switching them and people having to travel. All it takes is one fatality as a result of trying to make sure a game is played, and it is completely not worthwhile.

Rugby would have to have a really big ego to insist that playing all the games is more important than safety of all.

Imagine if it has been called Hurricane Jerome. He'd have targeted all the Welsh games only, just to stop them from going through

robbo277 wrote:

miaow wrote:Yes, it is in a lot of ways likely. My point was you're trying to ascribe fairness to this situation, which is quite literally not fair in anyway. Sport isn't fair, of course - but usually that occurs on the field of play. Or off the field as teams/nations/unions try to gain an 'edge'. The lack of fairness is not something systemic from the governing body - that's not acceptable in the slightest. We'll never know, but it would have been very, very interesting if one of the big heavyweights - namely NZ and England - had been in position to get knocked out through cancellation. Would it have happened? Who knows.

I understand all the practical points - it's desperate stuff, and I'm not about to go full Brexiteer on here and declare it a farce/shambles/something MUST be done/think of the children. No point pointing the finger aimlessly from the sidelines at anyone with authroity, without any knowledge of what they've been through in the last week.

I do think other alternatives were available, and could have happened if they'd really, really wanted them to (which is why the NZ/England question is interesting) but perhaps this is the best option.

My point was your assertion that there's somehow 'justice' to all of this - that losing 1 game early on, or having the (supposedly) random fall of fixtures come back to hurt you in terms of qualifying position, wheter 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, is in any shape or form 'deserved' or 'fair'. That's monumentally off the mark and feels like you're trying hard to make sense of something which cannot be made 'fair', at all.

Fairness is an odd concept when you have something like the weather acting asymmetrically. Let's say we postpone England vs France until Monday, what would you have done had England vs Tonga been written off instead? There's no time between then and now to have played the game, the earliest conceivable time to play it would be Wednesday but that would leave no time to recover before a potential quarter final on Saturday. Is there fairness in that? That one pool match can be rearranged but another can't?

Would there be outcry if it was Namibia vs Canada and USA vs Tonga being written off - with those matches exclusively between teams that have been eliminated? Or is it just because it impacts qualification and teams continuing in the tournament?

World Rugby have said there is no room in the schedule to postpone pool games and have made a rule to that effect. The game can be delayed (same day) but not postponed (new day). The weather has now acted asymmetrically, is it more fair to change the rules or stick to them? No-one has acted to favour England, France or New Zealand or discriminate against Italy, Wales or Australia, it's just luck. Changing the rules to try and level the playing field is a noble cause, but ultimately it wouldn't be fair.

You can say the rules are wrong in the first place and that may be another debate. But unless they're going to build in more reserve time during the pool stages then you cannot allow postponements in the pool stage.

Robbo, you're overthinking this. It's quite simple. You were trying to argue that a cancelled game is the same/equally 'fair' as, say, losing a game you actually play. Or that, if you lose a game, you can have no complaints for being knocked out in this way. It's not fair, cannot be fair, and will not be fair - and Italy are the first team to suffer most obviously, although there are many, many more minor gains and losses for nearly every team now.

No sporting tournament is ever completely fair (some pools are easier than others, some routes to the final look easier, refs - don't go there) but I agree getting knocked out in these circumstances is most harsh and unsatisfactory and does call into question the wisdom of holding the event in Japan at this time of year without more contingency plans.

BamBam wrote: This discussion has become pointless because it's become about big bad England and New Zealand getting the lucky break, rather than looking at the organisers focusing on the number 1 priority of getting Japan v Scotland played 

Maybe World Rugby and the bid team could have had a better contingency plan, but those are learnings for the future. It's a 1400km wide typhoon covering the vast majority of the country, there are limited opportunities for contingency anyway

The final can't be pushed back because the European clubs would not be happy. Assuming that is a fixed date, your only option is to cancel dead rubber games or go for very short turnarounds between knockout games, along with the added organisational stresses 

I know which I'd prefer, but I'll bow out of the discussion now

Has it? Fair points were raised regarding the advantages it gives them and France. My guess also, is that the organisers were doing their utmost to have Japan play Scotland. Have to wonder why the special treatment though, because they're hosts? France should have been given a fair shot at going for top spot in your pool. My money was on England winning, but we wouldn't know until we know.... and now we won't know.

I'm crap at geography, but is it as simple as bringing them away from the coast? More than 4 years preparing for a once in a lifetime (for some) world cup in typhoon season, and they cancel games. It's unacceptable, in my opinion. No typhoon can change our minds on that. This seems to be upsetting a few people? It's a highly debatable point and nobody should be upset over the debate, but rather upset on how this round of games has ended for some.

I see the sense in cancelling dead rubber games. I've heard tale that Eng V France was a dead rubber but don't agree with that, I doubt the players and supports would either. I don't agree with cancelling any games though, I'd rather they were rescheduled because the player and fans made the effort to be here.

It isn't fair, but you mitigate this in various ways. Sport isn't fair. Life isn't fair. I'm not arguing that cancelling games should be fair (say, by chalking off everyone's last game, or something, I don't know - that brings its own problems), nor am I proposing that we should do something/anything about the fact it isn't fair.

I just take major issue with the intellectual attempts to justify what's happened as fair after the fact. As if it doesn't matter 'because it's Italy'. Or that 'Scotland can't have any complaints because they lost to Ireland'. That doesn't cut it for me.

Heaf wrote:No sporting tournament is ever completely fair (some pools are easier than others, some routes to the final look easier, refs - don't go there) but I agree getting knocked out in these circumstances is most harsh and unsatisfactory and does call into question the wisdom of holding the event in Japan at this time of year without more contingency plans.

The very fact that it is sport, a sporting tournament, is by definition fair. What you are saying is that it isn't fair when one team is better than another. Or a group of teams are better than another group of teams. A game, a match, a sport, a tournament of sport, is fundamentally a level playing field. That is until a game is cancelled which can affect the outcome of the tournament. That isn't sport or sporting.

Where did I say it wasn't fair when one team is better than another?

What I'm saying is in a tournament there are invariably some aspects that mean some teams have a more favourable journey through it than others that aren't down to simply who is the best.

Let's say the best team and 2nd best team meet in one semi and the 3rd best team and 4th best meet in the other. If the best team in each leg goes through that means the 3rd best team overall gets to the final but the 2nd best team doesn't - it's the way KO tournaments work I know but is it completely fair? Let's say the officials make a mistake in the final and the 3rd best team wins ... still fair?

And to be clear - I agree it's not fair for cancelled games to affect the outcome.

Heaf wrote:Where did I say it wasn't fair when one team is better than another?  

What I'm saying is in a tournament there are invariably some aspects that mean some teams have a more favourable journey through it than others that aren't down to simply who is the best.  

Let's say the best team and 2nd best team meet in one semi and the 3rd best team and 4th best meet in the other.  If the best team in each leg goes through that means the 3rd best team overall gets to the final but the 2nd best team doesn't - it's the way KO tournaments work I know but is it completely fair?   Let's say the officials make a mistake in the final and the 3rd best team wins ... still fair?

And to be clear - I agree it's not fair for cancelled games to affect the outcome.

Happened to us in 87

Ireland v France was cancelled in 2012 six nations due to a frozen pitch. The game was played the following weekend. I know its not the same thing but you have got to find a way to get these games played.

We'll just play ours on the 2nd November then.

Collapse2005 wrote:Ireland v France was cancelled in 2012 six nations due to a frozen pitch. The game was played the following weekend. I know its not the same thing but you have got to find a way to get these games played.

Didn't an Ireland v England 6 nations game get cancelled and played several months later?

Afro wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Ireland v France was cancelled in 2012 six nations due to a frozen pitch. The game was played the following weekend. I know its not the same thing but you have got to find a way to get these games played.

Didn't an Ireland v England 6 nations game get cancelled and played several months later?

Foot and mouth, wasn't it?

That's what was lingering in the depths of my brain, but not convincingly enough for me to declare it!!

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Afro wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Ireland v France was cancelled in 2012 six nations due to a frozen pitch. The game was played the following weekend. I know its not the same thing but you have got to find a way to get these games played.

Didn't an Ireland v England 6 nations game get cancelled and played several months later?

Foot and mouth, wasn't it?

2002?

Geez, some people are in cuckoo land. Italy is now a chance of beating NZ purely because it’s off? How...convenient.

Parisse’s is understandably upset but is talking a load of crock about them finding a way if NZ needed the match.

Fact is NZ lose out by not having a reasonable match up within four weeks of a major quarter final, Canada and Namibia way down the list, and that’s if you call a 49-3 loss side reasonable.

Typhoon season has made some folks go to la la land.