Rugby World Cup - other team/games and general chat

First topic message reminder :

I couldn't see a topic to discuss general WC stuff and non home nations games.......

Now we do...

Gotta love the Uruguay SH being interviewed

'We got a tough gsme against the All Blacks next'

Said with the appropriate degree of nonchalance!

Good game, Namibia took it closer than I thought they would. However, their tackling and dissent, particularly from the number 7, was a disappointment.

Thought the two Namibian cards were right, but not sure about the Uruguayan sanction staying at yellow.

Japan v Samoa tomorrow should be a great contest.

Poorfour wrote:Very surprised that there was adjudged to be mitigation to keep the card at yellow. The tackle was never legal, so why was mitigation applied? (And the height of the ball carrier didn't change, so confused as to what the mitigation could have been)

Other tackles have seen first impact being with the shoulder used as mitigation across the tournament. Even if it's very marginal in a lot of cases. Whether that's a good way of officiating them is another question. It's been a dogs breakfasts across the tournament. It does feel that they have made a decision to be less strict since the earliest games. So now if there's any mitigation available, however marginal, it is getting applied.

Reading the news today looks like World rugby is considering possibly expanding the 2027 World Cup to 24 teams from 20 teams. Would be a good move in terms of expanding the sport and viewing figures. A lot of the tier 2 nations have done very well considering the massive resource disparity.

SH nations will really need to sort Super rugby out for the future. I think its playing a key role in the decline in New Zealand and Australian rugby.

Would be a terrible idea in my view. Would just see more hammerings. If there's four teams worse than Namibia, Romania and Chile out there...deary me.

Welshmushroom wrote:Reading the news today looks like World rugby is considering possibly expanding the 2027 World Cup to 24 teams from 20 teams.  Would be a good move in terms of expanding the sport and viewing figures.  A lot of the tier 2 nations have done very well considering the massive resource disparity.

SH nations will really need to sort Super rugby out for the future.  I think its playing a key role in the decline in New Zealand and Australian rugby.

24 teams might well be good for the viewing figures, at a time when rugby in America is gaining a bit of traction the national team's inability to qualify won't help it's popularity. Just as one example. There is of course a risk that there's less big matches in the group stages which is a shame. Ireland Vs SA, New Zealand Vs France, SA Vs Scotland, Wales Vs Fiji, Australia Vs Fiji have all been highly entertaining watches. It's nice to see a plucky underdog make a game of it but you want some big games early doors to get fans tuning in.

Re Australia and New Zealand I think they are heading for a big restructure. Domestic leagues with a end of season play off across the Tasman, possibly even expanding to involve the winner of the Japanese league etc. Currently there's to many one sided games, the Aussies hate losing and kick offs at unhelpful times. Australia in particular would really benefit from having a 10 team domestic league giving more players and coaches exposure and development.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:Reading the news today looks like World rugby is considering possibly expanding the 2027 World Cup to 24 teams from 20 teams.  Would be a good move in terms of expanding the sport and viewing figures.  A lot of the tier 2 nations have done very well considering the massive resource disparity.

SH nations will really need to sort Super rugby out for the future.  I think its playing a key role in the decline in New Zealand and Australian rugby.

24 teams might well be good for the viewing figures, at a time when rugby in America is gaining a bit of traction the national team's inability to qualify won't help it's popularity. Just as one example. There is of course a risk that there's less big matches in the group stages which is a shame. Ireland Vs SA, New Zealand Vs France, SA Vs Scotland, Wales Vs Fiji, Australia Vs Fiji have all been highly entertaining watches. It's nice to see a plucky underdog make a game of it but you want some big games early doors to get fans tuning in.

Re Australia and New Zealand I think they are heading for a big restructure. Domestic leagues with a end of season play off across the Tasman, possibly even expanding to involve the winner of the Japanese league etc. Currently there's to many one sided games, the Aussies hate losing and kick offs at unhelpful times. Australia in particular would really benefit from having a 10 team domestic league giving more players and coaches exposure and development.

Chile, USA, Canada are roughly the same level.  Not sure where Spain is, but I suspect about the same.  Leaves room for one other country.  Would provide more tight matches but also more blowouts.  

Regarding the erosion of domestic Rugby in NZ and especially Australia, I have a real out of the box suggestion.  Aus/NZ could ask the South African teams to play in a league with them?  It might be quite good.  In fact, it might be....super.

There's a quirk of the pool tie-breaker system where, if Italy are losing to the All Blacks, they will have an incentive to let the All Blacks get a try bonus point against them.

https://twitter.com/pauleddison/status/1706992055279354172

If the ABs don't get a BP against Italy, and Italy beat France, then all three teams could be on 14 points. The tie-breaker in that instance is points difference, and Italy go out. However if NZ get a BP, then they'll be on 15, with Italy and France behind on 14. In that instance, the tie-breaker would be the head-to-head result, so Italy would go through over France.

Moved to:

https://www.606v2.com/t71238-rugby-world-cup-other-team-games-and-general-chat#4108176

doctor_grey wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

BigGee wrote:Dupont apparently is having a cushioning face mask fitted this week, with a view to playing in the quarter final.

That would be a massive boost to France and may well be the difference in getting them over the line in what could be the hardest game they play in the whole tournament.

When Harinordoquy wore his monstrous mask, it was protecting his broken nose. The mask was designed to spread any impact to his forehead and cheeks. It must be much harder to protect a cheek in the same way, as there aren't as many decent anchor points.

When Sam Burgess played the NFL final with his face in a mess, adrenalin and competitive spirit overode the pain and, probably, better judgement. Dupont will be desperate to play, and will have some painkillers. However, if doctors think he could suffer permanent damage, say to his eye, if he suffers another heavy impact to that injury, you wonder if that's a risk worth taking.

I just went on the internet to find any good pics or renditions of what a likely repair to Dupont's Zygomatic Arch could look like.  Not for the squeamish.  My point is that simply surgically implanting a plate does not mean Dupont is good.  Those tiny screws also create fracture points whilst healing.  Doing this just to highlight the short term risks and what it looks like.  

I understand he cannot wear larger protection, but as long as the padding is less than 5 mm thickness he is legal.  5mm of foam (remember it has to be soft) may or may not do much, but would clearly be better than nothing.  

Believe it or not, I've actually had this maxillofacial surgery. I have two plates in my cheek. The incision for mine was done inside my mouth between my gum and the inside of my upper lip. Recovery time was.... unpleasant for me. It was quite painful and it took quote some time for the swelling to go down. I'm still not allowed to do contact sports.