• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[RWC2019][Pool C] Round 4 - England vs. France (12/10/2019) *MATCH CANCELLED DUE TO BAD WEATHER*

Thomas Ramos who left the french squad last week following an injury is gonna play with Toulouse tomorrow.
Source in french: https://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/top-...oulouse-contre-castres_sto7494884/story.shtml
Wtf is this? :eek:
Either the injury wasnt as bad as thought when he left or he ****** off the coaches big time. If a player goes home with injury then recovers can he just be swapped back into the 31 sending the replacement home or does there have to be a reason?
 
Either the injury wasnt as bad as thought when he left or he ****** off the coaches big time. If a player goes home with injury then recovers can he just be swapped back into the 31 sending the replacement home or does there have to be a reason?
i think as he had been replaced after playing he can't be added back into the squad again
 
i think as he had been replaced after playing he can't be added back into the squad again
Explains england keeping Nowell slade mako.

Thats still funny though, bet he is quietly hoping for an injury to a back 3 player.

Although crazy they would get an injury so wrong...maybe he/they did choose it
 
I dont recall when it was the old 5N that people would say the team coming off a week off held a significant advantage? Neither France or England are finished articles and might have benefited from testing different combinations in this fixture.

It's a pain for fans that are over there. But really, would France even have wanted to win this match and end up facing the Wallabies followed by the ABs? France will not fear a Welsh QF as they had them on toast for the first half in Paris in the 6N, and that half of the draw looks favourable to me.
 
I've written this on another board; though I'd put it up here - as Scotland v Japan is on again, I'm leaving it out of there, and this seems the most appropriate of the 3 cancelled match threads - whilst we do'nt have a specific thread to discuss the cancellations.



It SEEMS that the contingency for England v France was to move to a stadium 20km away.
I'm not expert on Typhoons - but I'm pretty sure it doesn't need to be a once-in-a-generation typhoon to render 20km as not far enough (medium-arge Typhoon affect an area 500km diameter).

It SEEMS that the contingency for NZ v Italy was to delay by 24 hours (nice consistency there, from the organisation screaming that they have to be consistent in their contingencies).
NZ didn't want to do that (despite having apparently read and signed up to the rubst contingencies) - so the competitor has the right to veto the contingency plan, without forfeitting.

It SEEMS that the contingency for Scotland vs Japan and Namibia v Canada was... literally non-existent (nice "robust" consistency there, from the organisation screaming that it has to be consistent in their contingencies, which are very "robust").



Now, it seems to me that when planning contingencies for an event taking place during typhoon season, you'd look at typhoon frequency, severity and size. You'd also need a contingency plan in place for earthquakes - though they'd come with so little warning as to be impossible to plan too much for.
Nippon.com tells me that for September & October, Japan can expect 5 typhoons to approach / afect Japan, and 1 to make landfall. So you absolutely HAVE to make contingencies, it is far more likely than not, for the RWC to be weather affected.
It would apear that a moderately large typhoon affects an area (to the point of preventing rugby being played) around a 250km radius from the eye.
So any contingency should involve, either moving a match in time, to play it before the effects build up, or after, by enough that it is likely to be playable - it would seem that 24 hours either side is safe (it also appears that NZ didn't like that contingency). The alternative is to move it in space - in which case, you'd want to either have 1 alternative venue 500+km away, or 2 alternative venues 250+km away so that they would be unaffected by the same typhoon. If you happen to get a super typhoon affecting a much larger area than anticipated, then so be it - that's unanticipated. The chances of a typhoon hitting, but a move of 20km (WR contingency) being enough are approximately zero.

Personally, I would then look at the size of Japan, and the maximum distance between stadiums used for the RWC (2,100km) and find it pretty much inconceivable that a typhoon would affect both Nagashimi (3 stadiums) and Hokkaido (1 stadium). You get a good 48 hours notice of reasonably precise tragectory for a typhoon - longer for less precise. I would not think it unreasonable for WR or RWC to essentially keep 2 stadia at opposite ends of the country ready enough that they can be used at 48 hours notice in the event of a typhoon disrupting the tournament (let's face it, they're being used anyway, so there's zero extra preparation required for that). We already know that teams can make the journey in time - because they have. If it's possible for England and France to both decamp 1,000km with 24 hours norice, I'm pretty sure that it's possible for WR to decamp 3 match officials the same distance with 48 hours notice. 70,000 fans are a different matter; but they're also not necessary for a rugby match to take place and playing behind closed doors is a better option than cancelling, whilst also making zero difference for the authorities dealing with a typhoon. Moving TV is also more difficult than moving teams; I simply don't know how much notice they'd require, but ultimately, rugby can be played without full TV coverage, and it's not beyond the wit of man to put up a static camera - which is still better for everyone than no match at all. If it means that matches are played back-to-back in the same stadium, then so be it - we know it's possible (although some of the pitches have been a disgrace that even the WRU or FFR would be ashamed of).
If you prefer the option of moving the match in time; so the same location, just 24 hours earlier or 24 hours later - then the only issue is to make the decision early enough.

If any team doesn't want to abide by the contingency plan; then they can always forfeit the match, and let the record say that they lost 28-0 with their opponent scoring 4 penalty tries.
 
I dont recall when it was the old 5N that people would say the team coming off a week off held a significant advantage? Neither France or England are finished articles and might have benefited from testing different combinations in this fixture.

It's a pain for fans that are over there. But really, would France even have wanted to win this match and end up facing the Wallabies followed by the ABs? France will not fear a Welsh QF as they had them on toast for the first half in Paris in the 6N, and that half of the draw looks favourable to me.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Having to ask one of the competitors for permission on how they'd like their games to be played is absurd.

I have always felt that the 'big unions get what they want, smaller unions can put up with it' story from rugby fans is overplayed. But this has been rather eye opening.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many of the Italian old boy will hold out until the 6 nations and therefore have the chance to have a last hurrah against England in the last week.
 

Latest posts

Top