Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Rugby World Cup 2023
[RWC2019][Pool C] Round 4 - England vs. France (12/10/2019) *MATCH CANCELLED DUE TO BAD WEATHER*
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 967110" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p>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).</p><p>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)</p><p>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).</p><p>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 <strong>me </strong>- 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.</p><p></p><p>All contingency plans will always be more expensive than not making contingency plans - so long as that contingency isn't required.</p><p>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?</p><p>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)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>2. Yes - if rumours are true.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 967110, member: 73592"] 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 [B]me [/B]- 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. 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) 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Rugby World Cup 2023
[RWC2019][Pool C] Round 4 - England vs. France (12/10/2019) *MATCH CANCELLED DUE TO BAD WEATHER*
Top