Trouble is it's a ready made excuse either way isn't it? If these teams lose then the rest left them undercooked, if they win well they were well rested.
it just opens up the avenues for the QF losers to whinge... not that they wouldn't anyway but you know what I mean.
For me, it leaves a huge asterisk on the entire competition (not Japan's fault, nor the JRU - it's WR and the RWC organiser's faults).
IF any of England, NZ or France reach the final, there will be an asterisk as to whether they had an unfair advantage due to an extra week's rest (I accept that the effect of rest will have reduced down to minor significance by the time of the final)
IF any of England, NZ or France fail to reach the Semi-finals, there will be an asterisk as to whether they had an unfair disadvantage due to arriving a the QF stage with all momentum robbed from them, and arriving rusty (I accept that that excuse only really holds for 1 match).
It is literally impossible for all 3 to reach the SF, and none of them to reach the final. Therefore the winner of this tournament has an asterisk next to their name, The tournament has been devalued for
me - and I don't expect anyone to agree with me, though I suspect some will. Of course, the record books won't show such an asterisk.
The reason why that didn't happen is because it's expensive.
Keeping a stadium ready all tournament and then not getting any gate money for it is really, really expensive. Calling off the games obviously doesn't help the wallet either, but at least then you don't have to pay for pitch prep, last minute flights and security. If the individual unions want to then fly out elsewhere and do their own thing to train over the weekend, you don't have to pay for it.
They're not admitting it but that's what it is.
All contingency plans will always be more expensive than not making contingency plans - so long as that contingency isn't required.
Exactly how much more expensive is it to keep a stadium ready to play rugby on, than to keep it ready to play rugby on?
The posts are up, the medical facilities are present, the whole place is clean anyway. Extra pitch prep to play in 2 days rather an 9 only comes into account if the contingency is required - surely. Last minutes flights / trains, security etc are only required if required. We're not talking about moving 70,000 people here; just 60 or so (2x23 + 3 + a dozen or so medical staff)
I admit I think the relocation idea is far more complex than people want to admit. The delay for 24 hours seams like a reasonable approach and of a significantly severe typhoon was to put a game on hold longer than that. Well we'd still be having this conversation but at least World Rugby was doing something.
So my view a pox on NZ for not agreeing to a 24 hour delay and a pox on WR/Tournament Organisers for not making it the de facto contigency and make it mandatory.
1. Like what? you move 60-odd people; all bar 3 of whom have proven that they can and have done so off their own back - before the match was even cancelled. Beyond that - how much security does a closed stadium require? how much does it cost to cut the grass and paint the lines? What else is REQUIRED? Yes, if you allow TV anything much more than 1 static camera; it would cost more (but not an insurmountable amount), yes if you try to move 70,000 fans, then it becomes hugely problematic - which is why no-one is suggesting that.
2. Yes - if rumours are true.