Rugby world cup 2015: A level playing field?

First topic message reminder :

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.

Well I can understand that approach, but the fact is that fans in the rugby heartlands in Scotland (the Borders) have made it absolutely clear that they will not tolerate change, and will continue to support their club sides regardless. In other areas of Scotland sympathetic to rugby - Aberdeen and the Highlands - the only sign of pro rugby that's accessible to them is the one off Autumn International that sometimes gets played at Pittodrie.

I would suggest that Scotland ought to be forced to get its house in order before being granted the privilege of hosting the World Cup, and I say that with a heavy heart.

fES,

Has Scotland got the stadia to host a WC on their own, I know Wales certainly haven't and any bid we made would have to include games played around the UK and Ireland.

Not sure what the criteria are, but we have 4 "large" stadia in Ibrox, Celtic Park, Hampden and Murrayfield plus Pittodrie, McDiarmid Park and Tannadice. Without football stadia we certainly couldn't.

It wouldn't be massively profitable compared to other options.

Cyril wrote:

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.

Fair comment. My response is we do it all the time in governance (conflict of interest). It's not uncommon in the real world. In terms of the World Cup, it's the direct link that's important. I'd suggest it's easily avoided as well.

If its ever proved that a ref has blatantly affected the outcome of a game to help his Nation then I just hope he gets banned for life.

bedfordwelsh wrote:If its ever proved that a ref has blatantly affected the outcome of a game to help his Nation then I just hope he gets banned for life.

Just to avoid confusion, I'm not suggesting deliberate, and/or pre meditated bias. For instance my understanding is Ed Morrison stated he wanted france to win before the 1999 final that he ran the line on. I'm sure he didn't make any deliberate calls against Australia. I'm sure he remained a competant referee afterwards. But in my opinion he should have been replaced for that game. Refereeing is a subjective job.

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...

Yet again more crap spouted by the crap spouter.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

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...

Yet again more crap spouted by the crap spouter.

 
10 out of 10

PMSL

With regard to the referee issue - there is such a small pool of suitably qualifed referees that there's not a lot of choice.
Given that the option is to employ referees from outside this group you come up with the same problem that has occured in the football World Cup, where officials from some of the minor nations appear just to be grateful to be on the same pitch as the top players and are more concerned with not offending the superstar teams and managers than running the game - even worse for them given that they have Septic Bladder standing over them as well.
Given the comparatively small size of the worldwide rugby community it would be very difficult for an offical not to have some sort of "dog in the fight", however obliquely - for example the winner of Pool B plays the runner up of Pool A - would a South African offical standing at the potential second place decider of Aus-Wales be an issue given that his decision might affect who South Africa play next?

Irish Londoner wrote:With regard to the referee issue - there is such a small pool of suitably qualifed referees that there's not a lot of choice.
Given that the option is to employ referees from outside this group you come up with the same problem that has occured in the football World Cup, where officials from some of the minor nations appear just to be grateful to be on the same pitch as the top players and are more concerned with not offending the superstar teams and managers than running the game - even worse for them given that they have Septic Bladder standing over them as well.
Given the comparatively small size of the worldwide rugby community it would be very difficult for an offical not to have some sort of "dog in the fight", however obliquely - for example the winner of Pool B plays the runner up of Pool A - would a South African official standing at the potential second place decider of Aus-Wales be an issue given that his decision might affect who South Africa play next?

Small the pool might be. But I think it's easily altered and an easy fix, I'll use the 2011 world cup based in NZ as an example.

In terms of pool play most games aren't an issue. I'd have changed Lawrence (NZ) from the England v Argentina game that would likely determine NZ's quarterfinal opponent and Barnes (England) who's team was in the group B from the Scotland v Argentina game (on the off chance the game result might influence Englands position). In terms of Group D I might have changed Owens (Wales) from the South African v Samoa game as Wales are in the group and there was an outside chance when the referees were appointed that the result might have an impact (say if Samoa and Wales drew).

Anyway the main issues are likely in the playoffs. From memory the refs are appointed after each round. So it's easy to who wins and who's eliminated. The only glaring clash for me is the quarterfinal between South Africa and Australia. This was refereed by Bryce Lawrence from NZ and the winner went on to play the All Blacks. Wayne Barnes or Alan Rolland, both of whom refereed later in the tournament, would have been more than adequate.

So not hard to do as there are only a handful of games.

I suppose if it's easy to do then best to err on the side of caution, but I really don't think this is much of an issue. Then again, as a Scots fan, we lose anyway. Not much a ref can do about it either way!

Jimpy wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

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...

Yet again more crap spouted by the crap spouter.

 
10 out of 10

PMSL

Jimpy you and Rainbow warrior are two peas in a pod. It's quite appropriate that you are in agreement - two wums sticking together.

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

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...

Yet again more crap spouted by the crap spouter.

 
10 out of 10

PMSL

Jimpy you and Rainbow warrior are two peas in a pod. It's quite appropriate that you are in agreement - two wums sticking together.

 
How ironic that somebody who gets so upset when a thread goes off topic would choose to make such an observation.  

Alright gents, lets all just stay relaxed eh? No petty sniping required   

blackcanelion wrote:Wayne Barnes or Alan Rolland, both of whom refereed later in the tournament, would have been more than adequate.

Got to be the first time Barnes and Rolland have had such a positive endorsement on this site at the same time!

Definitely at the same time.

For Rolland, people would say he was trigger happy and wanted to be the centre of attention. I used to think he was hard on the rules wouldn't put up with any crap. In his later years he would whistle more rather than play the advantage but to be honest he matured as a ref and would realise that hands in the ruck had already allowed the defensive line to set so there was no advantage to playing on a couple of phases of play that would go no where. He also carded cynical play very quickly which should be applauded.

Where he would get stuck, and it tends to happen with a lot of referees is when there are multiple infringements at the breakdown (the tackler hasn't released, the assisting tackler has rolled into the path of the scrum half, the supporting player has gone off his feet, some player is in from the side and the player on the ground hasn't released the ball, all the while the defensive line is a yard offside), if you want to start picking on a referee, you can point out one of the other infringements and say that should have been the penalty... sometimes that is the easy option rather than having a go at your own players.


On the topic, the RWC won't be a level playing field........ because SA and NZ are better than the other sides, Oz-England-Wales-France will be even contests and anyone from a Fiji-Samoa-Ireland-Italy-Argentina-Scotland will be evenly contested also. The rest of the games won't be level playing fields whether there is 4 days rest or 4 months rest.

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

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...

Yet again more crap spouted by the crap spouter.

 
10 out of 10

PMSL

Jimpy you and Rainbow warrior are two peas in a pod. It's quite appropriate that you are in agreement - two wums sticking together.

 
How ironic that somebody who gets so upset when a thread goes off topic would choose to make such an observation.  

The sensible thing from the mods would be to ban you and rainbow warrior but it won't happen. I go off topic because you drag things off topic.

thebandwagonsociety disagree. It's good that Rolland has retired. His style of reffing does not make for a good game in my opinion. Far too much stopping.

Rolland did not always card cynical play but I guess he's human.

As for level playing field - it's never a level playing field anyway. Many of the lower ranked team's players only train together in the lead up to the world cup. They don't have the same advantages that the established top tier have.

It's bad for business if some of the big teams go out early. From a commercial point of view it would especially be disastrous if England don't make it out of their pool.

Careful what you wish for beshocked. Anyways he's gone now. We can't clone Owens and none of the rest are in vogue, it won't be long before there are no refs left!

I agree with that last point. You always want the home nation progressing through the tournament, at least until the semi finals. An early exit for England would be a bit of a disaster for the tournament - far better England and Wales boot the Aussies out at the group stages!

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Careful what you wish for beshocked. Anyways he's gone now. We can't clone Owens and none of the rest are in vogue, it won't be long before there are no refs left!

Joubert is ok - a bit fussy, plus he doesn't seem to like Scotland very much, but I don't think he's a bad ref.

I think Walsh is a bit of a plonker, but I've seen him put in some pretty decent performances purely from a referee perspective.

Another sometimes controversial ref I actually rate is Roman Poite. I particularly like his approach to the scrum.

Owens is not infallible (who is?), but he does seem to get the balance right between being a stickler and allowing the game to flow. The players seem to respect him as well.

On the other hand I don't rate Chris Pollock at all - his interpretations lead to an entirely different form of rugby and he particularly struggles at the breakdown. I didn't rate Alan Lewis either - pleased to see the back of him. The issue with Barnes for me is that he loses his cool at key moments - not ideal for a ref.

thebandwagonsociety unfortunately I think there is a real lack of talent bar Owens. Owens makes mistakes too of course but when he takes a match, the quality of rugby on offer generally seems to be higher in my opinion.

Ref who I think has made the most improvement in the last year or so is Luke Pearce. He's young too so hopefully he could be an emerging ref to take on the mantle.

funnyexiledscot by the way I am not saying it because it's England. It's the same with any team that's the hosts. Especially when expectations are high.

To be honest all the home nations doing well would be good.

It's a shame that there is going to be at least one high profile casualty in Pool A.

Football is much more competitive these days but it means that you don't see some of the bigger sides in the quarter finals. Supporting the underdog is good and all but nothing quite beats matches between the old order in my opinion.

Just you guys wait till you start getting more of Marius Mitrea!

I think Beshocked has a point about the commercial side - from the point of view of maintaining interest beyond the rugby community who will watch everything and anything - it's vital to their success that England and to some extent the other home nations are involved at least to the semi final stage. Anything else would be the stuff of nightmares given the money involved.

There's also the legacy aspect to think of as well. This RWC is a big opportunity to increase youth engagement in rugby, as hosting all major tournaments are. Success makes that engagement far more likely.

I'm hoping for a trickle down effect for Scottish rugby as well, particularly given the proximity of the Newcastle fixtures. Beating Samoa and getting out of our group is extremely important.

What I really want to happen is for England to top Pool A and for Scotland to be runner-up in Pool B. That would make for an awesome knock-out fixture at Twickenham between England and Scotland. That would be some game.