Rugby world cup 2015: A level playing field?

Following the last world cup the IRB sought to ensure that the timing of matches didn't disadvantage smaller teams. In the 2011 world cup teams like Samoa were disadvantaged by short turn around times. I thought I'd look at the schedule and see if this actually happened (World cup fixtures) . My thoughts: Not really. The big winners are England, Samoa, Ireland and Italy and to a lesser extent the home nations and the IRB core nations. The big losers are still the bottom ranked sides (those that can least afford a poor schedule).

Here's my take

Group A
Seems to be scheduled to give England and Wales in particular the best chance of qualifying. England has the easiest schedule in the tournament. Wales gets to play 2 games at home and both Australia and Fiji face short turn around of 4 and 5 days respectively.
Australia: OK. They have four days between Fiji and Wales, followed by 6 days before the England game.
England: Winners. The hosts based in London for their big games. They have at least a week between fixtures. Additionally they finish against the weakest team in the tournament.
Wales: OK. The big issue will be the 5 days between England and Fiji. The up side is they have 2 games at home in Cardiff and Fiji also have a short turn around.
Fiji: Losers. No more than 5 days between matches, they play England and Wales at home and the big 3 in a row.
Zimbabwe/Russia: Losers. They have to play Wales in cardiff and have only 4 days to prepare for Fiji (probably their best chance for a win.

Group B
Short turn around leading into games affects all teams but Samoa. Japan and the USA might be able to compensate by fielding second string sides against South Africa. Scotland may end up having a relatively hard group. South Africa will wonder if they'll get enough preparation for the knockout round.
South Africa: Winners. Pretty easy group for them. they do have a 4 day turnaround for the game against the USA. But lets be honest they should win comfortably.
Samoa: Winners. The Samoans actually have a great draw. A relatively easy group with ample time between games.
Scotland: OK. The Scots draw isn't too bad. 2 games in Newcastle will almost be home games somewhat offsets the the 4 day turn around between Japan and the USA. This may not be as bad as it sounds as Japan go into the game having played South Africa a few days before.
Japan: OK. Not to bad a draw. The key issue is the 4 day preparation for Scotland. The key might be to fields a weakened team against the boks.
USA: OK. Similar to Japan. But again the 4 day turn around follows a game against the boks. Throw the game and go for the win against Japan.

Group C
No one's likely to be happy. I think it's more skewed than group B. NZ will likely play weakened sides and each of the others have banana skins to navigate.
New Zealand: Winners. Yes they have a 4 day turn around going into game 2, but it's against Namibia (who have to be one of the weakest sides at the tournament). Like South Africa they are likely to play understrength sides due to the draw.
Argentina: Losers. This could be interesting 5 days after they play New Zealand they have to front up against Georgia. Given they have to get out of the group they may field a weakened team against NZ and look to win against Georgia and Tonga.
Tonga: Losers. Two 5 day turn around against New Zealand and Argentina are going to limit their chances. I'm guessing they'll play an understrength side against Namibia and New Zealand will be a bridge to far.
Georgia: OK. They have a pretty good lead in to the games against the big boys. there's a short turn around for the game against Namibia. But it is the last game and they are the weakest team who have limited preparation.
Namibia: Losers. 2 short turn around mean it's going to be hard for them. They'll have to concentrate on Georgia and maybe Tonga.

Group D
Ireland, Italy and France all look like winners. Unfortunately it's at the expense of Canada and Romania.
France: Winners. A four day turn around following Italy, but they do play Romania. Normally it wouldn't be a problem.
Ireland: Winners. Good lead into to all games.
Italy: Winners. Good lead into to all games.
Canada: Losers. Short turn around for their game against France and Romania could see them play a second string side against France.
Romania: Losers. The draw means that they pretty much have to target one game to win and one to get close.

I look forward to the referee appointments. Lets hope Australian, English and Welsh refs aren't given Pool A games.

So any thoughts?

Why can't the powers that be orgasnise a more equitable system. I don't think anyone should play less than 6 days after their last game. If you are going to have a short period then surely it should be the top sides that have to deal with the issue, when they play a bottom side. Got feel sorry for a team like Fiji.

Agree, turn around times should be long enough, why can't they extend the tournament by one week, greedy?

Biltong wrote:Agree, turn around times should be long enough, why can't they extend the tournament by one week, greedy?

Probably more to do with the impact another week would have on NH club rugby, which is already going to be hugely disrupted. Another week would see the French and English club owners, in particular, throw a hissy fit!

England don't play all the games at Twickenham, their last game is being played at Old Trafford. This is the same day as Wales play Australia at Twickenham and I reckon the reason they (England) gave up home advantage was so that we (Wales) didn't get the crucial game against Oz at home.

I understand that Aus flatly refused to play Wales in Cardiff. As England were always likely to play a game in the north, it's a sensible resolution imo.

bw - be thankful that Wales have two games in Cardiff.

If you aren't hosting the world cup you shouldn't be playing at home imo.

All World Cup games should be in the country that won the bid. For the record, I believe England made a mistake in including games being played in Wales in their original bid document. It was always likely to court controversy & Australia are quite right to have complained about their game being staged at the MS.

Hound,

Honestly I don't think we should have any here, its not our WC but all these deals are sealed with some sort of dodgy back handers or sweetners. I also think there would be more pressure on Wales playing Australia in the MS than there will be at Twickenham.

Trev,

I agree but my understanding is that they win the bid by other Countries voting for them so to ensure Wales' vote they guaranteed us a few home games as a sweetner.

I don't have a problem with Wales hosting games. Besides, it will mean utilising one of the bwst rugby stadiums in the world.

IIRC the reason that the MS is used is that the WRU before they built it, they got an agreement out of the RFU (and I think the other home nations) that any World Cup bid by a home nation would include a certain number of the games at the MS, in return the WRU would guarantee support for any RWC bid by the home nation.

IL,

Something along those lines yeah and know its all to do with votes and who gets most votes etc.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:If you aren't hosting the world cup you shouldn't be playing at home imo.

All World Cup games should be in the country that won the bid. For the record, I believe England made a mistake in including games being played in Wales in their original bid document. It was always likely to court controversy & Australia are quite right to have complained about their game being staged at the MS.

To be honest, if you make deals with people when you host a world cup, seeing them get to play their games at home, it is only fair to expect the same back. I didn't see many English, Scottish, or Irish complain in '99

But that was before the wonders of forums wasn't it? And I didn't even know there were two codes of rugby back then (or that the WC was in the UK)

I have no complaints about the Schedule from a Scottish perspective. We have no excuses, we should beat the USA, Japan and Samoa and then qualify runners-up to South Africa. That is par as far as I'm concerned (whilst beating or drawing against SA would be a massive bonus) and anything less will be a black mark for Cotter.

Samoa will be tough and physical, but as Ali Strokosch rightly pointed out previously, it's not like this isn't a physical Scotland side. It's in the skill department where we may struggle, and in the last AIs the Japanese made some worrying inroads against us ball in hand.

Still, Group A is the one to watch. I really don't want to call that group, although I have a sneaky suspicion Wales will go out and Gatland will go as a consequence. I don't think the scheduling will have much impact to be honest.

When do you play Samoa? I'd prefer to play them early as they tend to do better with the more time they get at World Cups.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:If you aren't hosting the world cup you shouldn't be playing at home imo.

All World Cup games should be in the country that won the bid. For the record, I believe England made a mistake in including games being played in Wales in their original bid document. It was always likely to court controversy & Australia are quite right to have complained about their game being staged at the MS.

To be honest, if you make deals with people when you host a world cup, seeing them get to play their games at home, it is only fair to expect the same back.  I didn't see many English, Scottish, or Irish complain in '99

Agree, what must SA do if they host a world cup, play in Kenya?

HammerofThunor wrote:When do you play Samoa? I'd prefer to play them early as they tend to do better with the more time they get at World Cups.

We have them last, a week after the South Africa game. I hear what you say, but similarly we'll know exactly what we have to do against them to get through.

To be honest I don't really think the running order makes a huge amount of difference. My only hope is that Cotter doesn't do anything stupid like rest players against South Africa to keep them fresh for Samoa. I don't mind a bit of rotation against the USA (our second game after we've played Japan), but it should be all guns blazing against South Africa and then Samoa.

I reckon NZ are going to be caught cold. They'll be fit and injuries can be better managed due to the quality of the opposition, but running into France who love spoiling our parties or Ireland who are playing well and will use the disappointment of the last meeting absolutely stinks of a boilover for me.

disneychilly wrote:I reckon NZ are going to be caught cold. They'll be fit and injuries can be better managed due to the quality of the opposition, but running into France who love spoiling our parties or Ireland who are playing well and will use the disappointment of the last meeting absolutely stinks of a boilover for me.

was thinking the same thing...hate it when past paranoia keeps kicking in...  

As I said at the start I'm pretty disappointed. Teams like Fiji, Tonga, Georgia and Canada have been effectively denied a chance of big upset and their slim chance of making a quarters by the schedule and gifting of non host sides home games (boy would I love to be proved wrong). The mountain is even higher for some of the weakest teams.

The other point I was going to make was about referee appointments. Remember Bryce Lawrence in 2011 and Wayne Barnes in 2007 (in this case 3 English officials controlled the match). Both refs controlled games that determined their nations next opponents in the knock out stage. Shouldn't happen on the world stage. It's a question of basic integrity of the tournament, the IRB shouldn't put officials in that position. Bet you it does.....

The worst case scenario in the group stage would be An English referee for the Wales v Australia game. This could decide whether England goes through or who they face. Really hope it doesn't happen. Hopefully they select an Irish, French or South African referee for that game (NZ will likely play the second placed side in pool B). I'm hoping for a English, Welsh, Australia or NZ ref for the France Ireland game for the same reasons.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:If you aren't hosting the world cup you shouldn't be playing at home imo.

All World Cup games should be in the country that won the bid. For the record, I believe England made a mistake in including games being played in Wales in their original bid document. It was always likely to court controversy & Australia are quite right to have complained about their game being staged at the MS.

To be honest, if you make deals with people when you host a world cup, seeing them get to play their games at home, it is only fair to expect the same back.  I didn't see many English, Scottish, or Irish complain in '99

Notwithstanding the MS is a great venue. If a country has the ability to host the WC using only stadia in its own country then IMO the bid should include only those.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:If you aren't hosting the world cup you shouldn't be playing at home imo.

All World Cup games should be in the country that won the bid. For the record, I believe England made a mistake in including games being played in Wales in their original bid document. It was always likely to court controversy & Australia are quite right to have complained about their game being staged at the MS.

To be honest, if you make deals with people when you host a world cup, seeing them get to play their games at home, it is only fair to expect the same back.  I didn't see many English, Scottish, or Irish complain in '99

Notwithstanding the MS is a great venue. If a country has the ability to host the WC using only stadia in its own country then IMO the bid should include only those.

Big Trev I do agree that whoever wins the bid should host the cup on their own. However, back in Wales RWC '99 deals were struck between the WRU and RFU, IRFU, SRU and FFR to ensure that all the Five Nations sides were able to host their own pool games at home (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Rugby_World_Cup). And as such the RFU have been reminded of the deal that was struck.

Personally I would rather Wales didn't have any home games, unless it was another one like in '99 were we all did it.

Blackcanelion this topic is not a very subtle criticism of England is it? Yes the hosts have made the scheduling as advantageous as possible but what host doesn't?

On the topic of refs - as if Wayne Barnes was thinking "I am going to make sure that NZ lose" so England don't need to play them. Got to blame someone else don't you?

France beat NZ at the Millennium Stadium of all places! The host didn't get home advantage.

Wheels within wheels - Wales has benefitted/will benefit from RWCs hosted by France and England - the Welsh were the ones who eventually supported the Anglo-French club situation.

Wales needed to keep England happy because of the rugby world cup situation. Any scuppering of the RWC 2015 would have damaged Wales as well as England.

Self interest and greed. I think all countries are guilty of it as are all clubs.

beshocked wrote:

France beat NZ at the Millennium Stadium of all places! The host didn't get home advantage.

About the only advantage France didn't get. But I don't deny NZ's part in losing that game. neither do I think Barnes was part of a conspiracy to help England through to the final. The conspiracy was the 15 French players conspiring to exhibit unbelievable defence under the cosh for most of the game. Missed calls or not you play what's in front of you and France rallied instead of capitulated and the rest is history.

As I said before I'm more worried about the draw than the refs. If we click and smash Argentina then that's four walkovers followed by pressure cooker stuff. Not good.

Disneychilly I would much rather have your pool than the one England is in. You might be undercooked but there is basically no chance you'll go out in the pool stages.

Pool A is the pool of death by some margin.

beshocked wrote:Disneychilly I would much rather have your pool than the one England is in. You might be undercooked but there is basically no chance you'll go out in the pool stages.

Pool A is the pool of death by some margin.

Not really, unless you happen to be Wales. Wales struggle with SH opposition, and have England (in the ascendency) at Twickenham. The real question is who will top the group out of Australia and England, because that will be crucial on the easier path to the later stages.

Irish Londoner wrote:IIRC the reason that the MS is used is that the WRU before they built it, they got an agreement out of the RFU (and I think the other home nations) that any World Cup bid by a home nation would include a certain number of the games at the MS, in return the WRU would guarantee support for any RWC bid by the home nation.

That is pretty much true but I think it is the old 5Ns that signed up to it as a group, remember there were games for France 2007 that were in Cardiff also. At the time MS was being built they needed a commitment that the other nations would help put more fixtures into MS if possible. The trade off is correct that the WRU will support a bid by any of the 5Ns unions.

The error in hindsight was not putting a time limit on that commitment, even say 20 years would have meant something. But as the RWC grows in size and scale the value of that deal really benefits the WRU.

Not too sure of a way that it could be exited. All I can think of is that if two nations, say France and Ireland bid for a RWC, then the WRU couldn't vote for both bids and then as a result of that voting process the WRU would have broken their side of the agreement and the commitment would disappear.

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Disneychilly I would much rather have your pool than the one England is in. You might be undercooked but there is basically no chance you'll go out in the pool stages.

Pool A is the pool of death by some margin.

Not really, unless you happen to be Wales. Wales struggle with SH opposition, and have England (in the ascendency) at Twickenham. The real question is who will top the group out of Australia and England, because that will be crucial on the easier path to the later stages.

Love it, we always prefer the under dog tag so if you and Australia can carry on thinking its just a 2 horse race that will suit us fine.. I would have at least waited until after 6 nations to see how over confident I would get but you carry on.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Disneychilly I would much rather have your pool than the one England is in. You might be undercooked but there is basically no chance you'll go out in the pool stages.

Pool A is the pool of death by some margin.

Not really, unless you happen to be Wales. Wales struggle with SH opposition, and have England (in the ascendency) at Twickenham. The real question is who will top the group out of Australia and England, because that will be crucial on the easier path to the later stages.

Love it, we always prefer the under dog tag so if you and Australia can carry on thinking its just a 2 horse race that will suit us fine.. I would have at least waited until after 6 nations to see how over confident I would get but you carry on.

Its a three horse race actually, Fiji are in the group...

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Disneychilly I would much rather have your pool than the one England is in. You might be undercooked but there is basically no chance you'll go out in the pool stages.

Pool A is the pool of death by some margin.

Not really, unless you happen to be Wales. Wales struggle with SH opposition, and have England (in the ascendency) at Twickenham. The real question is who will top the group out of Australia and England, because that will be crucial on the easier path to the later stages.

Love it, we always prefer the under dog tag so if you and Australia can carry on thinking its just a 2 horse race that will suit us fine.. I would have at least waited until after 6 nations to see how over confident I would get but you carry on.

Bedfordwelsh to be honest I don't think many English fans think the way Jimpy does. I don't think it's wise to write off Wales.

Wales have struggled to beat SH sides in the last 5 years but eventually they will do it - perhaps they'll save it for the RWC. Wales are a decent side but just lack that belief when victory is within their grasp against SH sides.

As for Wales vs England - Wales haven't had the same psychological baggage vs England - beating Wales will not be easy.

Yup-England aren't a SH hemisphere side. Plus the 30-3 shellacking will be still in the players' minds, along with the fact that although England have a superior WC record to Wales (and every other NH side) Wales have indeed knocked them out of a WC.

Beshocked I'd probably prefer that pool being an AB supporter. I don't believe it's arrogant but rather confident-for all NZ's foibles at consolidating their usual ranking position at this tournament they don't happen at the pool stage.

As a neutral I can't wait for Pool A. Any one of the big three could be going home early- Right now you'd have to say England and Australia are the favourites to qualify but Wales could so easily turn that on its head that it adds a much needed sense of unpredictability and excitement to the tournament that is absent in some of the other pools.

Pool A is going to be decided by the finest of margins, that and the presence of the host nation in there will mean excitement from the get-go in 2015!

Jimpy wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Disneychilly I would much rather have your pool than the one England is in. You might be undercooked but there is basically no chance you'll go out in the pool stages.

Pool A is the pool of death by some margin.

Not really, unless you happen to be Wales. Wales struggle with SH opposition, and have England (in the ascendency) at Twickenham. The real question is who will top the group out of Australia and England, because that will be crucial on the easier path to the later stages.

Love it, we always prefer the under dog tag so if you and Australia can carry on thinking its just a 2 horse race that will suit us fine.. I would have at least waited until after 6 nations to see how over confident I would get but you carry on.

Its a three horse race actually, Fiji are in the group...

Jimpy,

Fair one and I would laugh if it wasn't so true I feel more confident about the two big games than I do about that one because we have genearlly always struggled against them and Samoa. Whether its another mental issue or not I don't know.

disneychilly wrote:Yup-England aren't a SH hemisphere side. Plus the 30-3 shellacking will be still in the players' minds, along with the fact that although England have a superior WC record to Wales (and every other NH side) Wales have indeed knocked them out of a WC.

Beshocked I'd probably prefer that pool being an AB supporter. I don't believe it's arrogant but rather confident-for all NZ's foibles at consolidating their usual ranking position at this tournament they don't happen at the pool stage.

 
I sincerely doubt it, they'll have a healthy respect, but England beat Wales last time out, fairly comfortably and that's been put to bed. You might just as well say Wales will have the 62 v 5 shellacking from 2007 in their minds. But you wouldn't, because that would be irrelevant wouldn't it...

Group A is clearly going to be a terrific contest. The other groups allow for there to be two straightforward games for the top sides (and arguably South Africa don't really have any fixtures to worry about), whereas the only fixture that presents itself as genuinely straightforward is the Zimbabwe/Russia game.

It's going to come down to two from three in my view, Fiji won't get out of that group, but it's a pretty nasty draw for Australia, England and Wales.

That England vs Wales game is going to be an absolutely humdinger. You know the Welsh will be fit and extremely well prepared for the tournament, and although the Welsh side looks a touch past its best, Gatland may well refresh a couple of positions this year. It'll be interesting to see whether anything gets held back a bit during the 6 Nations.

Australia also won't look fondly at that draw either. Both Wales and England are defensively strong and Australia can expect their set piece to be robustly tested. We saw in the Lions and in the 2nd French test in the summer that they can be choked off at source, and despite having some sublime talent behind the scrum, the Aussie pack is not a dominant force.

Behind all that there is the banana skin that is Fiji. They will be physical and possess top notch broken field runners. Their unorthodox attack always causes even the best sides problems, and takes teams out of their comfort zone.

All in all it's an extremely awkward group and I'm glad that Scotland is nowhere near it!

Have Fiji really improved that much from 2011? They were awful at that World Cup. They might have some good runners, but at XVs they just seem badly organised and don't have enough cohesion.

I can't see them troubling England, Australia or Wales.

Shhhhhhhhhh Cyril we (Welsh) have heard it all before

Was meaning that Wales would have the 30-3 game in their minds-so there isn't the mental block. It wasn't about England.

How old do games have to be to become irrelevant though? An interesting question...

disneychilly wrote:Was meaning that Wales would have the 30-3 game in their minds-so there isn't the mental block. It wasn't about England....

It might depend on who the ref is.......   

beshocked wrote:Blackcanelion this topic is not a very subtle criticism of England is it? Yes the hosts have made the scheduling as advantageous as possible but what host doesn't?

On the topic of refs - as if Wayne Barnes was thinking "I am going to make sure that NZ lose" so England don't need to play them. Got to blame someone else don't you?

France beat NZ at the Millennium Stadium of all places! The host didn't get home advantage.

Wheels within wheels - Wales has benefitted/will benefit from RWCs hosted by France and England - the Welsh were the ones who eventually supported the Anglo-French club situation.

Wales needed to keep England happy because of the rugby world cup situation. Any scuppering of the RWC 2015 would have damaged Wales as well as England.

Self interest and greed. I think all countries are guilty of it as are all clubs.

No it's not a dig at England. The current issues are just as valid for the 2011 World Cup in NZ. It just happens the next one is in England.

I'm disappointed that for all the noise and undertakings we still seem to be no further forward.
1) the schedule still favours the established nations.
2) the solo bid by England changed to include wales for political reasons.

As per refs. It's not about ref intentionally favouring one side. In theory Steve Walsh could referee nz. In practice we know it wouldn't work. We've tried home refs in the past and there is a reason major sport does it. In my opinion it's the same with games that refs have a direct stake in. IMO Bruce Laurence should never have been appointed to referee sa v Australia in 2011. The winner played nz. The same goes for Barnes and co in 2007. It's a basic question of integrity.

blackcanelion wrote:It's a basic question of integrity.

You're basically saying that refs don't have any.

If we're in a situation (I don't believe we are) where we can't trust refs not to have one eye on how games affect their nation then we may as well give up on the sport.

Looking at it from another angle, if the ref's nation reaches the final then they can't ref it (unless you change nations) so it's not in their personal interest.

I'd add another thought. I'd be concerned if I was Scottish or Irish. The change in 2011 to the 2009 bid that was voted on potentially undermines the chance of Britain and Ireland hosting a cup in the near future. Particularly if Wales or England were involved. I think the full irb votes.  Wales was sold to the irb as a stadium for south west English fans. I doubt they would back that argument a second time.

Whilst I entirely agree that a ref should not be involved in a match featuring their own nations (with the best will in the world you cannot possibly ref that match objectively - I certainly know I couldn't, and neither could any of the refs I played under at school), you cannot start second guessing outcomes of other matches to try and presume impartiality on that basis.

That said, if you're right, I'd expect Scotland to get some pretty favourable treatment at the next World Cup. Who wouldn't want to face us in the knock-out stages??!

blackcanelion wrote:I'd add another thought. I'd be concerned if I was Scottish or Irish. The change in 2011 to the 2009 bid that voted on potentially undermines the chance of Britain and Ireland hosting a cup in the near future. Particularly if Wales or England were involved. I think the full irb votes.  Wales was sold to the irb as a stadium for south west English fans. I doubt they would back that argument a second time.

I see zero chance of Scotland hosting a World Cup in any capacity. Hardly anyone supports professional rugby teams in Scotland (the core support for Edinburgh and Glasgow in aggregate is around 10,000), and we disgraced ourselves with pathetic turnouts last time we managed to bully ourselves a part-time gig. We also put out a second string side against the All Blacks at the last WC - much to our disgrace in my view.

I'm sorry, I'm a huge fan of Scottish rugby, but right now we've done nothing to merit becoming a host country for the World Cup.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:I'd add another thought. I'd be concerned if I was Scottish or Irish. The change in 2011 to the 2009 bid that voted on potentially undermines the chance of Britain and Ireland hosting a cup in the near future. Particularly if Wales or England were involved. I think the full irb votes.  Wales was sold to the irb as a stadium for south west English fans. I doubt they would back that argument a second time.

I see zero chance of Scotland hosting a World Cup in any capacity. Hardly anyone supports professional rugby teams in Scotland (the core support for Edinburgh and Glasgow in aggregate is around 10,000), and we disgraced ourselves with pathetic turnouts last time we managed to bully ourselves a part-time gig. We also put out a second string side against the All Blacks at the last WC - much to our disgrace in my view.

I'm sorry, I'm a huge fan of Scottish rugby, but right now we've done nothing to merit becoming a host country for the World Cup

You could say the same for Japan to a point, but it is a world cup, and should go around the world, and not just around the 5-10 nations

Cyril wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:It's a basic question of integrity.

You're basically saying that refs don't have any.

If we're in a situation (I don't believe we are) where we can't trust refs not to have one eye on how games affect their nation then we may as well give up on the sport.

Looking at it from another angle, if the ref's nation reaches the final then they can't ref it (unless you change nations) so it's not in their personal interest.

No I am not. I'm saying that refs are human and their purpose is an independent adjudicator. As a rule of thumb we should put them in situations where national bias may come into play. We have enough referees that we don't need to.

blackcanelion wrote:

Cyril wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:It's a basic question of integrity.

You're basically saying that refs don't have any.

If we're in a situation (I don't believe we are) where we can't trust refs not to have one eye on how games affect their nation then we may as well give up on the sport.

Looking at it from another angle, if the ref's nation reaches the final then they can't ref it (unless you change nations) so it's not in their personal interest.

No I am not. I'm saying that refs are human and their purpose is an independent adjudicator. As a rule of thumb we should put them in situations where national bias may come into play. We have enough referees that we don't need to.

But where do you stop? And we might have enough referees, but I'd bet that almost all who are any good are from one of the major rugby nations. And who is to say that SA wouldnt benefit from an SA ref sending off an AB in a group match?

Lots of reasons for not playing a ref from one of the competing countries (being seen to be doing the right thing, communication and interpretation advantages etc) But you have to trust them to do their job and act impartially outside of that situation.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:I'd add another thought. I'd be concerned if I was Scottish or Irish. The change in 2011 to the 2009 bid that voted on potentially undermines the chance of Britain and Ireland hosting a cup in the near future. Particularly if Wales or England were involved. I think the full irb votes.  Wales was sold to the irb as a stadium for south west English fans. I doubt they would back that argument a second time.

I see zero chance of Scotland hosting a World Cup in any capacity. Hardly anyone supports professional rugby teams in Scotland (the core support for Edinburgh and Glasgow in aggregate is around 10,000), and we disgraced ourselves with pathetic turnouts last time we managed to bully ourselves a part-time gig. We also put out a second string side against the All Blacks at the last WC - much to our disgrace in my view.

I'm sorry, I'm a huge fan of Scottish rugby, but right now we've done nothing to merit becoming a host country for the World Cup

You could say the same for Japan to a point, but it is a world cup, and should go around the world, and not just around the 5-10 nations

Japan has the whole "emerging nation" thing going for it though, plus there's quite a bit of money behind rugby in Japan. Scotland has the opposite issue: no money, low support for professional rugby and declining performances on the pitch (based on a historic trend).

I don't mean to be down about it, and I'm completely fine with Scotland not hosting a World Cup in the near future. We don't deserve it at the moment.

blackcanelion wrote:

Cyril wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:It's a basic question of integrity.

You're basically saying that refs don't have any.

If we're in a situation (I don't believe we are) where we can't trust refs not to have one eye on how games affect their nation then we may as well give up on the sport.

Looking at it from another angle, if the ref's nation reaches the final then they can't ref it (unless you change nations) so it's not in their personal interest.

No I am not. I'm saying that refs are human and their purpose is an independent adjudicator. As a rule of thumb we should put them in situations where national bias may come into play. We have enough referees that we don't need to.

You're reading 'national bias' into situations where it just didn't happen. If there's a worry about a ref not being impartial in a game then he needs to be removed. We don't just take them out of pressure situations, it's what they're trained to do. I'd also argue that there aren't enough top-class refs to do what you're suggesting. Where do you draw the line? Almost any game can have an impact on who a side might meet in the later stages. Many sides have a stake in the outcome of particular games in a World Cup.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:I'd add another thought. I'd be concerned if I was Scottish or Irish. The change in 2011 to the 2009 bid that voted on potentially undermines the chance of Britain and Ireland hosting a cup in the near future. Particularly if Wales or England were involved. I think the full irb votes.  Wales was sold to the irb as a stadium for south west English fans. I doubt they would back that argument a second time.

I see zero chance of Scotland hosting a World Cup in any capacity. Hardly anyone supports professional rugby teams in Scotland (the core support for Edinburgh and Glasgow in aggregate is around 10,000), and we disgraced ourselves with pathetic turnouts last time we managed to bully ourselves a part-time gig. We also put out a second string side against the All Blacks at the last WC - much to our disgrace in my view.

I'm sorry, I'm a huge fan of Scottish rugby, but right now we've done nothing to merit becoming a host country for the World Cup

You could say the same for Japan to a point, but it is a world cup, and should go around the world, and not just around the 5-10 nations

Japan has the whole "emerging nation" thing going for it though, plus there's quite a bit of money behind rugby in Japan. Scotland has the opposite issue: no money, low support for professional rugby and declining performances on the pitch (based on a historic trend).

I don't mean to be down about it, and I'm completely fine with Scotland not hosting a World Cup in the near future. We don't deserve it at the moment.

Or the other way of looking at it, is that a RWC could just be what it takes to re-ignite the interest in the game.