Rugby World Cup 2023 - retrospective

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

It kind of killed my enthusiasm for international rugby, I won't lie.

The final was nervy and that's to be expected but there was only really 4 top quality games in the cup and two of them in the group stages. From an entertainment perspective having the 5th (I think it's fair to put England ahead of Scotland who really didn't show up) and 7th best teams at the tournament in the semi finals was a disaster.

A format change with an expedited group stage will be welcome. Hopefully Ireland crack that but because we never figured out the 20 team format.

SA deserved it, purely through knowing how to get over the line when it mattered, they were also involved in the two highest quality games of the comp and possibly ever at RWCs. So marginal though between the top 4. Different ref selection, bounces of the ball, injuries etc… and it could have gone one of four ways. Which is why it's quite underwhelming that the last two weeks haven't been the top 4 battling it out for the cup and third place, it really could have been one for the ages and it wasn't.

4 more years of shitty QF jokes and a likely trough in Ireland's performances but we'll endeavour. Irish rugby does a lot more right than wrong and with a bit of luck we don't even need to be as strong as we were this comp to win one. David Humphries has done great stuff with English cricket and was a shrewd signing for us.

I agree with pretty much all of your post except I'd add there are other, big issues contributing to the entertainment issue.

One of them is clearly the player safety and cards issue. I honestly don't know what the answer is here but I think we all have a sense that it's ruining games. I'd be interested to see research data on collision reduction with the current tackle laws. I hope it's made a difference but the fact that they still happen very regularly just goes to show that deterrents don't really work.

I think the draw should probably happen later, but I also think the problem isn't usually this obvious and hopefully won't be quite like this again. Whether it's 2 years, or 4 years before....it still shouldn't be enough time for teams at the very top to completely nosedive and be absolute garbage 4 years on.... I don't think we'll see many examples as dramatic as what happened with England, and Australia going forward. It's hard to completely control for teams forgetting how to play rugby in a short space of time

There will always be some luck and easier routes. Although England didn't deserve such an easy run in at all, at least our game with SA was as close as NZ and France's 1 point games. I'm sorry but Argentina were a complete disaster - I agree. Overall I'm ok with the fact that there should be some luck in the draw, but within limits

After all, in 2007 and 2019 SA had, I would argue, very straightforward routes to the cup relatively speaking. Especially 2007. This year, they had just about the hardest imaginable. I think it's okay that we won't always have the 4 best teams in the semis, and routes to the final will vary in difficulty - but I agree we need to try and minimise of a draw quite this skewed.

 

[saulan]

After all, in 2007 and 2019 SA had, I would argue, very straightforward routes to the cup relatively speaking. Especially 2007.

2007 I think people don't give enough respect to Argentina and think of them too much from a lens of today. In their run to the semi, they beat the hosts France, Ireland and Scotland. Scotland maybe wasn't that much of an achievement, but both Ireland and France were rated well above Argentina going into that. They had a massive scrum and some world class players. They also proceeded to beat France again in the 3rd place play-off. There was a reason they got their way into the TRC after that.

Rankings as at August 27 2007
New Zealand 93.37
Australia 87.00
France 86.83
South Africa 85.36
Ireland 81.29
Argentina 80.71
England 78.83
Wales 76.33
Italy 75.07
Scotland 74.88

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

It kind of killed my enthusiasm for international rugby, I won't lie.

The final was nervy and that's to be expected but there was only really 4 top quality games in the cup and two of them in the group stages. From an entertainment perspective having the 5th (I think it's fair to put England ahead of Scotland who really didn't show up) and 7th best teams at the tournament in the semi finals was a disaster.

A format change with an expedited group stage will be welcome. Hopefully Ireland crack that but because we never figured out the 20 team format.

SA deserved it, purely through knowing how to get over the line when it mattered, they were also involved in the two highest quality games of the comp and possibly ever at RWCs. So marginal though between the top 4. Different ref selection, bounces of the ball, injuries etc… and it could have gone one of four ways. Which is why it's quite underwhelming that the last two weeks haven't been the top 4 battling it out for the cup and third place, it really could have been one for the ages and it wasn't.

4 more years of shitty QF jokes and a likely trough in Ireland's performances but we'll endeavour. Irish rugby does a lot more right than wrong and with a bit of luck we don't even need to be as strong as we were this comp to win one. David Humphries has done great stuff with English cricket and was a shrewd signing for us.

I agree with pretty much all of your post except I'd add there are other, bigger issues contributing to the entertainment issue.

One of them is clearly the player safety and cards issue. I honestly don't know what the answer is here but I think we all have a sense that it's ruining games. I'd be interested to see research data on collision reduction with the current tackle laws.

I think the draw should probably happen later, but I also think the problem isn't usually this obvious and hopefully won't be quite like this again. Whether it's 2 years, or 4 years before....it still shouldn't be enough time for teams at the very top to completely nosedive and be absolute garbage 4 years on.... I don't think we'll see many examples as dramatic as what happened with England, and Australia going forward

It kind of killed my enthusiasm for international rugby, I won't lie.

The final was nervy and that's to be expected but there was only really 4 top quality games in the cup and two of them in the group stages. From an entertainment perspective having the 5th (I think it's fair to put England ahead of Scotland who really didn't show up) and 7th best teams at the tournament in the semi finals was a disaster.

A format change with an expedited group stage will be welcome. Hopefully Ireland crack that but because we never figured out the 20 team format.

SA deserved it, purely through knowing how to get over the line when it mattered, they were also involved in the two highest quality games of the comp and possibly ever at RWCs. So marginal though between the top 4. Different ref selection, bounces of the ball, injuries etc… and it could have gone one of four ways. Which is why it's quite underwhelming that the last two weeks haven't been the top 4 battling it out for the cup and third place, it really could have been one for the ages and it wasn't.

4 more years of shitty QF jokes and a likely trough in Ireland's performances but we'll endeavour. Irish rugby does a lot more right than wrong and with a bit of luck we don't even need to be as strong as we were this comp to win one. David Humphries has done great stuff with English cricket and was a shrewd signing for us.

2007 I think people don't give enough respect to Argentina and think of them too much from a lens of today. In their run to the semi, they beat the hosts France, Ireland and Scotland. Scotland maybe wasn't that much of an achievement, but both Ireland and France were rated well above Argentina going into that. They had a massive scrum and some world class players. They also proceeded to beat France again in the 3rd place play-off. There was a reason they got their way into the TRC after that.

Rankings as at August 27 2007
New Zealand 93.37
Australia 87.00
France 86.83
South Africa 85.36
Ireland 81.29
Argentina 80.71
England 78.83
Wales 76.33
Italy 75.07
Scotland 74.88

Oh for sure, Argentina were a very good side with top players. But the way I see it, at a world cup you should expect to have to beat the best teams in successive games. It's about doing it and going again and again. For a northern hemisphere team like England I price in needing to beat the southern big three as it were. Which is what happened in 2019, albeit we also got lucky then and the France group stage game got cancelled. But there's usually some sort of assymetry in the draw I would suggest.
You guys' run in this time versus 2007 is night and day

 

[OllyM97]

I thought the tournament overall was average. The pool stages dragged on for too long and were short on quality games. Bar Pool C it all went to script in terms of who qualified. Beforehand I thought that Italy or Scotland had an upset in them and could have got through but it wasn't to be. The only 3 games in the pool stage that i really enjoyed from first minute to last were Wales/Fiji, SA/Ireland and actually Georgia v Portugal!. A lot of the matches were very forgettable.

The Quarter-Finals were the best games of the tournament by a considerable margin. Argentina/Wales wasn't a high quality game but it was tight all the way through. Ireland/NZ and France/SA were two of the best matches I've ever seen. They were actually rarities in that all 4 teams played brilliantly. You don't see that very often in big knockout games. One team normally crumbles. I do believe that had France beaten the Boks they would have gone all the way but in that game SA showed why they are World Champs. England/Fiji, whilst not at the level of the games in Paris was exciting and Fiji nearly pulled off an epic comeback having being outplayed for 60 minutes.

The Semi-Finals for me were a bit of a damp squib and they showed how ridiculous the draw was. Argentina were out of their depth against NZ and i believe England only got close to the Boks because of the weather conditions.

I know some people will disagree but I thought the final was enjoyable as a contest. You are never going to get tries galore when the stakes are that high but it was a tense match which was in the balance right until the end, which is what a final is meant to be.

Finally, given the draw they had and how tough the knockout games were, the Springboks are deserving Champions. When it got to the pointy end of the tournament, their experience and depth won the day. Four finals, Four wins. That's some feat.

 

[Grizwald]

I enjoyed it on the whole I think I managed to watch most games.

The week off seemed to make the competition as a whole loose some momentum, it felt long anyhow 8 weeks/the best part of 2 months? Not sure how you get around it unless theirs bigger squads to allow more rotation. Football world cups are ~4 weeks Rugby is far more attritional for the players.

France going out turned the whole country off which is fair enough but turning up to boo and jeer other teams, players and officals wasn't a good look.

TMO and bunker needs sorting out. They're not up to the standard of the referee's they either need to catch everything or just leave it to the ref other than for serious acts of foul play.

An example the disallowed try for NZ on Saturday the TMO is only permitted to go back a maximum of 3 phases (unless for foul play). The TMO was constantly in the refs ear so much so Barnes was dismissing what they were saying. I kind of feel that TMO's and VAR etc should only intervene to eliminate the absolute clangers in try scoring situations, feet in touch, knock ons etc and serious foul play

It leads onto the need for speeding up the game. I'll always watch rugby, to survive and grow the sport needs to grow its audience, for the casual fan it's hard to follow and can be boring. Reset scrums take so much time out of the game, calls have become a bit of a lottery. If the ball is playable I'd like to see the team with the feed be made to play it, and the maximum sanction be a free kick.

I really appreciated some of the so called tier 2 nations performances, however I don't think expanding the comp in the next RWC is the right thing to do unless a plate comp can be added. I'd have loved to have seen the like of Portugal, Uruguay and Scotland play more games.

Next couple of world cups are in big countries I think the comp looses something when the venues etc are spread out personally.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

1)
So we need to be careful about wishing for two diametrically opposite things :
a) The best teams making it through to the later stages
b) Some unpredictability in the results
If you want to see some shock results (and it wouldn't be sport without it - you could play the whole tournament in a simulation on paper in ten minutes), then you have to accept that you'll get some surprise teams in the later rounds, and thus mis-matches in the knockout games
Personally I can forgive an awful lot as we received that *epic* QF weekend from the Rugby Gods - four of the best world cup games happening back to back, and every one going to the wire.

This is key.

 

[40/20]

TMO and bunker needs sorting out. They're not up to the standard of the referee's they either need to catch everything or just leave it to the ref other than for serious acts of foul play.

An example the disallowed try for NZ on Saturday the TMO is only permitted to go back a maximum of 3 phases (unless for foul play). The TMO was constantly in the refs ear so much so Barnes was dismissing what they were saying. I kind of feel that TMO's and VAR etc should only intervene to eliminate the absolute clangers in try scoring situations, feet in touch, knock ons etc and serious foul play

Agree and I'd advocate for the latter - TMO intervention limited to foul play only (not withstanding the definition of foul play needs some work too).

But for anything else, we have 3 on field officials. If they miss something then so be it; we accept its an imperfect game officiated by humans who will make the odd mistake. Help those officials get better, but keep the game moving. The joy we all used to feel the moment a try has been scored is now replaced with trepidation while we wait to see if the TMO spotted something before half time. Nothing will ever be perfect. As a fan, I can genuinely say I find incessant TMO interventions far more off-putting for my enjoyment of the game than the odd missed call, even if they do go against my team.

And on another slightly unrelated note - can we just axe the intentional knock on rule. Sanctioning players for what is often just a reflex action, and asking officials to assess if there was a "reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession." is nonsense IMO. There's already enormous subjectivity in officiating as it stands. If a defender can get close enough to slap the ball down, fine. Put the onus on the passer to execute better.

 

[ncurd]

And on another slightly unrelated note - can we just axe the intentional knock on rule. Sanctioning players for what is often just a reflex action, and asking officials to assess if there was a "reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession." is nonsense IMO. There's already enormous subjectivity in officiating as it stands. If a defender can get close enough to slap the ball down, fine. Put the onus on the passer to execute better.

Intentional knocks on have been reffed pretty consistently for years unless your name is Ben O'Keefe not even a lightly controversial law.

 

[40/20]

Intentional knocks on have been reffed pretty consistently for years unless your name is Ben O'Keefe not even a lightly controversial law.

Fair enough but the consistent application of a law doesn't make the law itself any less (IMO) unnecessary.

We all want more flow and less stoppages but whenever this situation comes up, its almost inevitably followed by a drawn-out TMO review that stops the game in its tracks (or worse, brings the game back after several phases have passed) and then some poor bugger gets a 10min rest for something that may have been just a reflex reaction.

Let a defender knock it down if they can reach it, play some advantage, and if none, return for a scrum. No drawn out TMO review, no cards. Just carry on with the game. And next time, the passer does a better job of keeping the ball out of reach.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Intentional knocks on have been reffed pretty consistently for years unless your name is Ben O'Keefe not even a lightly controversial law.

not im my opinion and if it is and the stuff i remember are the exceptions then i think it falls into the bucket of rules that just seem to be looking for things to penalise

couple of years back otago playing in the NPC, other team has an overlap on our 22, our last defender goes for the intercept...he's beaten one way or the other so why not. He pops UP the ball but gets a bit too much on it, he runs and dives for it but ultimately can only get a finger on it...red card and penalty try, basically has done everything that could be expected for someone actually trying to intercept the ball except actually getting it

The default seem to be if you dont actually complete the intercept then your getting a card.

My feeling is there is already a sanction for knocking the ball on...a scrum, a penalty just seems over the top and if the attacking team doesnt want the defender to get their fingers on it....then pass it earlier

 

[ncurd]

The default seem to be if you dont actually complete the intercept then your getting a card.

I think you can argue against the law. I'd disagree vehemently high risk/high reward.

My main exception was against the idea it wasn't consistently applied.

 

[Which Tyler]

not im my opinion and if it is and the stuff i remember are the exceptions then i think it falls into the bucket of rules that just seem to be looking for things to penalise

couple of years back otago playing in the NPC, other team has an overlap on our 22, our last defender goes for the intercept...he's beaten one way or the other so why not. He pops UP the ball but gets a bit too much on it, he runs and dives for it but ultimately can only get a finger on it...red card and penalty try, basically has done everything that could be expected for someone actually trying to intercept the ball except actually getting it

Have to say - from that description, it sounds like he deliberately knocked the ball forwards and upwards, with the intention of regathering it before is lands, but fails.
It also sounds like a pretty consistent application to penalise - though the card should have been yellow by that description.

The solutions in that circumstance:
A] Eyes up in defence - if you find yourself in a position where you're defending an overlap in the red zone - make sure you're defending an attacker, not the space in between them; ideally, the ball carrier.
B] Alternatively, if you go for the intercept, make sure you're close enough to get both hands on the ball, but don't go with one hand, wafting the ball up with a hope and a prayer (being deliberately harsh here).
C] Sometimes, you just have to accept that you've been beaten, and are in the wrong place to do anything that won't get you sent off. Then it's down to team tactics whether it's better to take one for the team, and go off for a yellow, or allow the opponents to score. If you're really the last man in defence, then you should also have enough awareness that giving away a yellow card offence will see the try scored anyway, with a guaranteed conversion. It can be ridiculously hard to think that way in the heat of the moment - once you've realised that you've f***ed up, you want to make amends, but compounding error upon error is rarely a good strategy (though it does seem to be one favoured by a couple of my teams).

Of course, that might be completely unfair, I've only got the written summary above to go by.


ETA: I've found the clip now (I think). If I'm right, then I'm not being even slightly harsh by saying that he wafted at the ball one handed, on a hope and a prayer. The knock on looks absolutely deliberate to me, he just hoped to collect it again, and failed.
Of course, had he succeeded in regathering the ball before it touches the ground or anyone else, he'd have got away with it. Oh, and the card is yellow, not red.



ETA2: TBH, on slow-speed, I'm not being harsh enough, he's just looking to obstruct the pass, that the ball goes upwards and he nearly regathers is incidental to his first movement. His thought process appears to be "oh shit, I've been beaten and he's got the pass away before I've made my tackle".
As for consistency - that's certainly how it's been reff.d in the NH for well over a decade. To be inconcsistent, we'd need to see repeated occassions of a tackler deliberately moving a single hand towards the ball as it's passed before he gets his tackle in, with the ball going forwards, not being regathered, and NOT being considered a deliberate knock on.
Hell, even if he doesn't move his hand towards the ball, but just leaves it out there, it's usually considered a deliberate knock on (exception being that the hand out there is a natural position to be in to complete the tackle)

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Have to say - from that description, it sounds like he deliberately knocked the ball forwards and upwards, with the intention of regathering it before is lands, but fails.
It also sounds like a pretty consistent application to penalise - though the card should have been yellow by that description.

The solutions in that circumstance:
A] Eyes up in defence - if you find yourself in a position where you're defending an overlap in the red zone - make sure you're defending an attacker, not the space in between them; ideally, the ball carrier.
B] Alternatively, if you go for the intercept, make sure you're close enough to get both hands on the ball, but don't go with one hand, wafting the ball up with a hope and a prayer (being deliberately harsh here).
C] Sometimes, you just have to accept that you've been beaten, and are in the wrong place to do anything that won't get you sent off. Then it's down to team tactics whether it's better to take one for the team, and go off for a yellow, or allow the opponents to score. If you're really the last man in defence, then you should also have enough awareness that giving away a yellow card offence will see the try scored anyway, with a guaranteed conversion. It can be ridiculously hard to think that way in the heat of the moment - once you've realised that you've f***ed up, you want to make amends, but compounding error upon error is rarely a good strategy (though it does seem to be one favoured by a couple of my teams).

Of course, that might be completely unfair, I've only got the written summary above to go by.


ETA: I've found the clip now (I think). If I'm right, then I'm not being even slightly harsh by saying that he wafted at the ball one handed, on a hope and a prayer. The knock on looks absolutely deliberate to me, he just hoped to collect it again, and failed.
Of course, had he succeeded in regathering the ball before it touches the ground or anyone else, he'd have got away with it. Oh, and the card is yellow, not red.



ETA2: TBH, on slow-speed, I'm not being harsh enough, he's just looking to obstruct the pass, that the ball goes upwards and he nearly regathers is incidental to his first movement. His thought process appears to be "oh shit, I've been beaten and he's got the pass away before I've made my tackle".
As for consistency - that's certainly how it's been reff.d in the NH for well over a decade. To be inconcsistent, we'd need to see repeated occassions of a tackler deliberately moving a single hand towards the ball as it's passed before he gets his tackle in, with the ball going forwards, not being regathered, and NOT being considered a deliberate knock on.
Hell, even if he doesn't move his hand towards the ball, but just leaves it out there, it's usually considered a deliberate knock on (exception being that the hand out there is a natural position to be in to complete the tackle)

ok, a few years back so memory not a 100%, i didnt think it was tasman but cant imagine there was another one similar

my feeling in the SH is it described as a genuine attempt to intercept, which i feel that was, in your own words "absolutely deliberate to me, he just hoped to collect it again" which personally i think is enough, to make an attempt to regather and not just knock it down, other people talk about things like knocking the ball down or up as an indicator

maybe you and @ncurd are correct and it is consistent....and i just dont like it, another thing on the list of things i'm realising i dislike about top level rugby

 

[ncurd]

ok, a few years back so memory not a 100%, i didnt think it was tasman but cant imagine there was another one similar

my feeling in the SH is it described as a genuine attempt to intercept, which i feel that was, in your own words "absolutely deliberate to me, he just hoped to collect it again" which personally i think is enough, to make an attempt to regather and not just knock it down, other people talk about things like knocking the ball down or up as an indicator

maybe you and @ncurd are correct and it is consistent....and i just dont like it, another thing on the list of things i'm realising i dislike about top level rugby

Usually it's about of hands that touch the ball in first instance. Basically is it one which is outstretched like in that video.

I haven't seen many deliberate knock ons given for anything but a one handed attempt away from the body. If at all.

 

[Which Tyler]

ok, a few years back so memory not a 100%, i didnt think it was tasman but cant imagine there was another one similar

my feeling in the SH is it described as a genuine attempt to intercept, which i feel that was, in your own words "absolutely deliberate to me, he just hoped to collect it again" which personally i think is enough, to make an attempt to regather and not just knock it down, other people talk about things like knocking the ball down or up as an indicator

maybe you and @ncurd are correct and it is consistent....and i just dont like it, another thing on the list of things i'm realising i dislike about top level rugby

I just don't see how.
He deliberately knocked the ball forwards, and failed to regather.
The options then available to you are
A] No knock on, despite the blatant knock on.
B] Accidental knock on, despite it being a deliberate action to knock the ball forwards..
C] Deliberate knock on.


The later attempt to catch the ball is a separate issue, and more of a failed get-out-of-jail-free card.
Have you ever seen a deliberate knock on like that with a failed attempt to later catch the bak given as accidental?
If so, then the inconsistency is that ref getting it wrong, not all the other refs getting it right.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I just don't see how.
He deliberately knocked the ball forwards, and failed to regather.
The options then available to you are
A] No knock on, despite the blatant knock on.
B] Accidental knock on, despite it being a deliberate action to knock the ball forwards..
C] Deliberate knock on.


The later attempt to catch the ball is a separate issue, and more of a failed get-out-of-jail-free card.
Have you ever seen a deliberate knock on like that with a failed attempt to later catch the bak given as accidental?
If so, then the inconsistency is that ref getting it wrong, not all the other refs getting it right.

As I said, I feel knocking the ball forward and regathering should be allowed, I think it's a legit way to intercept the ball, only a knock on once it hits the ground or another player…but then that's what it is, knock on and I feel that it different to knocking it straight down

But I come from the angle of just letting more **** go, less reasons to give penalties etc and I realise that doesn't align with the game and I have already conceded it might not be as Inconsistent as I felt off the cuff

 

[Which Tyler]

As I said, I feel knocking the ball forward and regathering should be allowed

It is - so long as it's regathered before hitting the floor or another player.

I feel that it different to knocking it straight down.

Why?
I'll grant that a player in good position between passer and receiver, who slaps the ball upwards as much as possible and forwards as little as possible probably is trying to gather the ball, but that's pretty exceptional circumstances. Vast majority of the time it's a cynical attempt to make up for being beaten by better play.

In the example of the video, which I think is the incident you're talking about, it wasn't an attempted interception, it was an attempted spoil, which almost ended up as a fluke interception by sheer dumb luck. It's a deliberate knock-on all day.

As for letting cynical cheat stuff go - I'm of the opinion that there's already far too much of that in the game. I'm certainly not of the opinion that if you deliberately and cynically cheat, you get to complain when penalised.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Why? Because I feel one gives you a chance to regather and the other doesn't

It doesn't feel right that the thing the decides if it's a penalty is if your successful, an action itself should be allowed or not…so there isn't even the temptation to go for it

Have already acknowledge I may have mis remembered that example and honestly don't have the time or inclination to go looking to see if it was another example I was thinking of as that's probably it

It feels like your annoyed I have a different view of things, really don't want to argue, I don't see lots of them as cynical, where you think the majority are a cynical attempt to break play I honestly feel most players that at least pop it up have in their mind I can get the ball and be under the posts

 

[Which Tyler]

Not annoyed at all - trying to understand your rationale

 

[ncurd]

But I come from the angle of just letting more **** go, less reasons to give penalties etc and I realise that doesn't align with the game and I have already conceded it might not be as Inconsistent as I felt off the cuff

I'm actually of the opinion we should be coming down a lot harder in the red zone like the deliberate knock on. I thunk part of the reasons we see less trys in that area is defenses will quite happily get away with murder knowing at worst it'll likely just be 3 points as opposed to 7.