Discussion
Cocknose said:
They have admitted they've sought legal advice, so yeah it's true. The participation agreement is pretty clear on the matter, but Scotland want an exception.
Along with the 19 other teams, the Scottish Rugby Union signed the Rugby World Cup 2019 terms of participation, which clearly state in Section 5.3: ‘Where a pool Match cannot be commenced on the day in which it is scheduled, it shall not be postponed to the following day, and shall be considered as cancelled. In such situations, the result shall be declared a draw and Teams will be allocated two Match points each and no score registered.’”
In other words Scotland were happy to sign because they didn't think it would affect themAlong with the 19 other teams, the Scottish Rugby Union signed the Rugby World Cup 2019 terms of participation, which clearly state in Section 5.3: ‘Where a pool Match cannot be commenced on the day in which it is scheduled, it shall not be postponed to the following day, and shall be considered as cancelled. In such situations, the result shall be declared a draw and Teams will be allocated two Match points each and no score registered.’”
The Mad Monk said:
For future tournaments, I think the number of nations qualifying should be reduced from 20 to, say, 16. Instead of having 5 teams in each group, have 4.
There aren't 20 nations that can play a decent standard of rugby.
I can see where you're coming from - however am I right in thinking that the biggest scores haven't been as bad as previous years?There aren't 20 nations that can play a decent standard of rugby.
I'd like to see more regilar matches between T1 nations and the rest and (maybe) a "nation's cup" for 16/20 T2 nations. Another idea could be to incorporate the national teams into pro-14/prem/other national leagues?
Stella Tortoise said:
irocfan said:
full time professionals vs semi-pro would have a fair bit to do with it....
b
ks, you people keep blurting about how lucky the Welsh team have been yet they keep winning.You are full of s
t.
basherX said:
Just when has a settled team it tinkers with it. I’m more a Slade fan than a Ford fan but have to admit I can’t understand the justification for swapping them out. Slade’s hardly played and Ford has been going well.
Seems this is defensive rather than just backing the players to win.
Hopefully I’m proved wrong.
I did wonder - the team seems to be reactive which I'd have thought is the wrong way to go about things. Surely you set out your stall and let the (weaker?) other side worry about what you're bringing to the table (also encapsulates nicely why Cips was never going to get a shake of things under EJ)Seems this is defensive rather than just backing the players to win.
Hopefully I’m proved wrong.
Sn1ckers said:
Taylor James said:
I thought England beat a good Australian side convincingly. NZ beat a poor Irish side easily.
This for me.I thought England had to work hard, particularly in the 1st half, against an attacking Australia. I thought Ireland played poorly and as a result made NZ look good.
If both NZ & England play to the standard they played to today it will be a great match with a result that's far from certain.
Edited by irocfan on Saturday 19th October 17:53
dickymint said:
JustALooseScrew said:
So back on topic...
JPN v SA
I fancy Japan for the win!
(kill me for starting a thread with the word 'So')
JPN v SA
I fancy Japan for the win!
(kill me for starting a thread with the word 'So')
Bookies say +/- 15 points (ie. SA should win). So far the bookies have been dismal with their handicap predictions which is good as i've made a few quid
This time however I think they are right and SA will win fairly comfortably.Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff