• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

RWC Week 4 matches

waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

George Smith (75)
Japan v Scotland may also be scrubbed or transferred:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/rugb...ation-as-super-typhoon-hagibis-escalates.html

EDIT: or postponed by 24 hours with no change of venue:

https://www.planetrugby.com/england-and-france-meeting-in-the-balance/

If they do cancel Eng v Fra & postpone Jap v Sco I can see the logic: England & France have both qualified already so the match is in some ways irrelevant. Japan v Scotland, though, still has a bearing on qualifying so every effort should be made to allow it to proceed.
 
KOB1987

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
Derpus

Derpus

Nathan Sharpe (72)
KOB1987 said:
It will be interesting to see if Owens gets cited, because that would essentially be WR (World Rugby) admitting that Garces and Skeen fucked up, and they’d then have to review their future involvements as they did with Gardner. As it stands at the moment WR (World Rugby) are the only people that can’t see that Ben Skeen should be banished to Outer Mongolia.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that a red is outcome based. So, because he landed on his back, it won't meet the threshold.
 
Strewthcobber

Strewthcobber

Steve Williams (59)
World rugby have two seperate definitions of a red card in that situation, the first is if the upper body is driven into the ground, the second is if the player is dropped from height without care for the players safety.

So there is still room for a citing if they want to go down that path
 
zer0

zer0

John Thornett (49)
Would be a pretty sh*t way to lose a 32 year winning record of pool play. Would have to make do with simply being undefeated. smh

EDIT: Would this also impede upon the current 17 game winning run of RWC matches?
 
Tex

Tex

Greg Davis (50)
zer0 said:
Would be a pretty sh*t way to lose a 32 year winning record of pool play. Would have to make do with simply being undefeated. smh

EDIT: Would this also impede upon the current 17 game winning run of RWC matches?
Click to expand...

Nah, but you'd probably get a little asterisk next to the 18 match undefeated* record
 
ACR

ACR

Desmond Connor (43)
I can't believe cancellations are the go to move for a world cup tournament.

Honestly, if you make a decision early enough, and contingencies were planned to begin with, there's no reason you couldn't ship the squads off to another city and play in front of an empty stadium if you have to.
 
drewprint

drewprint

Alan Cameron (40)
I was really hoping to see the French and the Poms bash the living daylights out of each other. Damn. Although does it hurt the English having a bit less game time together before the quarters? I’m torn.
 
VassMan

VassMan

Darby Loudon (17)
How can they say the England France game doesn't have an impact on quarter finals. Yes I understand that they will both make the quarters, but whoever won the game tops the pool which changes who they play in quarters. Also as drewprint pointed out, they would have smashed shit out of each other, there could have been injuries or suspensions, but now they have an extra week to prepare for Wales and Australia. Surely World Rugby thought about this when having the tournament in typhoon season in Japan!?!? Also, wtf am I supposed to do all weekend now haha.
 
Micheal

Micheal

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Can’t they fly the teams to Hong Kong or South Korea to play the games?

I think this is a bit of a joke. Given that they don’t have a contingency plan, cancelling the games makes perfect sense due to safety, but you can’t ignore the fact that they had FOUR years to create contingency plans.

It’s not like Typhoons are a new thing at this time of the year in Japan.

Has anybody got Ben Skeens opinion yet? Can he overrule them?
 
B

Bobby Sands

Guest
Derpus said:
My understanding is that a red is outcome based. So, because he landed on his back, it won't meet the threshold.
Click to expand...

My point was that I think the Tier 2 sides are adjudicated different, and not just for dangerous play. They are always assumed to be infringing, where as the Tier 1 sides are always assumed to be do the right thing/professional especially in rucks, the setpiece, offsides etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top