• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
sorry to hear that mate - as long as you paid your subs you would be covered by insurance. you definitely require dispensation to play senior front row if you are under 18, but the club is at fault there. I would be calling a meeting with the registrar and president of the club you were playing at when you got injured, they should be doing the following up for you. Get your parent/guardian in on the action as well.
 

Rebel man

Jim Lenehan (48)
Yeah I think it’s 3000$ but the insurance hasn’t even given me a claim number yet. I’m lucky and had private health to cover most of surgery but 125$ on physio every week pre and post op for like 52 weeks isn’t cheap just want to know whats doing and if it’s bc my dispensation wasn’t done or what the go is.

Also is what the medic said a problem considering I played 2/3 of a ressies game after stability test then had another stability test and played end of prems game?
Does your club have a physio you could use? We didn’t when we played rugby down in Melbourne but when I was playing Aussie rules that was the standard that the clubs had a physio who’d take care of you
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)

I was just reading the same thing...

For that reason the GF host venue won't be announced until next year.
 

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
This is definitely the logical progression once you ensure a minimum number of days between matches. The lack of daily matches is definitely a bit of a bummer.

4 pools of 6 so you have three games for every pool each week and can have less days without any matches.
 
Last edited:

Wallaby Man

Trevor Allan (34)
Minus Romania not been of standard, it looks like the remaining teams are past the 100pt drubbings of yesteryear.

- Spain (better than Romania and improving year on year)
- USA
- Canada

It would just be that 4th spot that would be dodgy. Probably be looking for a guaranteed second Asian side. So South Korea or Hong Kong.
 

Wilson

Michael Lynagh (62)
This is definitely the logical progression once you ensure a minimum number of days between matches. The lack of daily matches is definitely a bit of a bummer.

4 pools of 6 so you have three games for every pool each week and can have less days without any matches.
The larger pools also have the advantage of maximizing the exposure the smaller nations get at this level and against the spectrum of teams involved.

The next question is do they do a round of 16 or is 2/3 teams progressing taking the piss?
 

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
The larger pools also have the advantage of maximizing the exposure the smaller nations get at this level and against the spectrum of teams involved.

The next question is do they do a round of 16 or is 2/3 teams progressing taking the piss?
round of 16.

1694587777810.png

It does mean, teams like Uruguay will probably progress and get absolutely destroyed in the round of 16 by South Africa or something.
 

Wilson

Michael Lynagh (62)
I might need a bit of help understanding this graphic here, is this Placing-Pool - e.g 2A = 2nd in pool A?

Either way I don't have too much of an issue with arranging the top 4 from 4 pools into a round of 16, I'm more wondering if it raises some of the same questions that 8/12 sides in super rugby making the finals does. It might be less of an issue in a world cup where everyone hasn't played everyone already, but it could be argued it devalues the pool stages for the big teams with them much more likely to get an easy path out of the pool.
 

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
I might need a bit of help understanding this graphic here, is this Placing-Pool - e.g 2A = 2nd in pool A?

Either way I don't have too much of an issue with arranging the top 4 from 4 pools into a round of 16, I'm more wondering if it raises some of the same questions that 8/12 sides in super rugby making the finals does. It might be less of an issue in a world cup where everyone hasn't played everyone already, but it could be argued it devalues the pool stages for the big teams with them much more likely to get an easy path out of the pool.
yeah, 2nd in pool a. so mostly all the 2nds play each other.

I agree 2/3 doesn't look great, but not sure how else you do it.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
The next question is do they do a round of 16 or is 2/3 teams progressing taking the piss?

I would just keep it at quarter finals.

A round of 16 would be a waste of time as you'd have maybe one or two competitive matches from the current "pool of death" teams that miss out.

You'd also add another week to the competition which is already long enough.
 

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
I would just keep it at quarter finals.

A round of 16 would be a waste of time as you'd have maybe one or two competitive matches from the current "pool of death" teams that miss out.

You'd also add another week to the competition which is already long enough.
top 6 go through, with the final 2 seeded from the best of the rest?
 

Wilson

Michael Lynagh (62)
top 6 go through, with the final 2 seeded from the best of the rest?
I don't think you can go back to a seeded model where an uneven number of teams make it out of the pools. You get away with it in smaller cups where there just aren't enough teams but in a larger one it just looks wrong.
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
I think 6 pools of 4, with a round of 16 (a structure that has been used a fair bit in soccer) is a lot better than 4 pools of 6. The weakest 8 teams only play 3 games, pool phase doesn't drag out, and you get another 8 knockout games which would be awesome. A couple of the round of 16 games may be uncompetitive, but it'd still be more tense than if it's just another pool game. And it'd be great for more t2 sides to get to play knockout games.
 
Top