Rugby World Cup 2019 Japan The hunt for Webb Ellis

Cosmo Kramer

sydthebeat wrote: »

Fair enough.

Let's see if and how they apply the decision tree in the citing adjudication.

Three matches for Lee-Lo anyway. Doesn't seem to be any news on the other Samoan yet.

joseywhales

I definitely think Italy could rattle SA, narrow loss for Italy probably, they seems to be fit and well prepared. Hopefully they give us a nice template.

razorblunt

If Italy start Parisse they’ll be in trouble. Their backrow was very well balanced today.

Dog Botherer

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Are Italy ever going to produce a top player who is entirely home-grown?

Campagnaro is absolute class, reckon he’s better at 13 than anyone South Africa have for sure.

Squidgy Black

Dog Botherer wrote: »

Campagnaro is absolute class, reckon he’s better at 13 than anyone South Africa have for sure.

Minozzi was a standout for Zebre and Italy, missed out on the 6N due to injury but definitely has potential to be top level.

Loafing Oaf

Dog Botherer wrote: »

Campagnaro is absolute class, reckon he’s better at 13 than anyone South Africa have for sure.

Oh right, just showing my ignorance then...

RugbyLover123

sydthebeat wrote: »

the biggest helper for the pacific islands would be an allowance to move back from a tier 1 country to tier 2 after a set amount of time, say 2 years.......

do this, and find someway to put manners on clubs enforcing retirement for better contracts.. and their stock would rise sharply in world rugby.

20% of the worlds professional players are from the pacific islands......

Move back from a Tier 1? The whole point of international rugby is representing your country. Granted with it’s become a bit blurred with the 3 year rule, but why should there be an allowance for a player to go and make money playing for Abs/Oz then when they aren’t wanted go back to Fiji/Tonga? I’d nearly protest that solution more then the 3 year one.

If they’re so proud of their bloody heritage as they say they are they would play for them and earn their money at club level.

Legalfarmer89

Ya I think that letting players move from Tier 1 to Tier 2(country of origin) wouldn’t be a good idea.

What may actually help the Island nations is the residency rule going from 3 to 5. Some amount of them(home grown) have actually been capped by other countries through residency and a good few aren’t even in this World Cup. They also have problems of players not playing for them due to pressure from clubs and probably worst of all corruption(Samoa’s prime minister is their unions president)

There is quite a few born and raised(until usually they are scouted for secondary school but some go voluntarily to school in NZ or Aus) capped by the All Blacks or Aus.

Nathan Hughes(Fijian No8capped by England),Naisarani(No 8 for Aus) Rokodunguni,Speight, Koreibete, Naivalu, Raka, Vakatawa, Sivivatu( I know he is old now), Nakataci, Sevu Reece, Taminivalu, Naiyaravoro and Naholo(I think he moved to live with uncle tbf ) are all fijians capped by other counties, mostly backs but it does effect their dept of their squad.
Malakai Fekitoa, Shannon Frizzell, Vae Fifita and Taniela Tupou are Tongan born before being scouted for secondary school rugby by NZ schools and capped by NZ or Aus(Tupou).

There’s probably a good few Samoans as well but could be bothered looking it up.

I think that the Tier 1 countries could give the Tier 2 teams more tests which would help bridge the gap. Georgia’s u20 team turned over both Ireland and Scotland u20s in recent years

Podge_irl

A lot of the islanders will end up in NZ pretty young for pretty obvious economic, education and social reasons. The residency requirement won't really impact them.

The idea of being able to move tier 1 to tier 2 is that aiming for a NZ career is, ultimately, phenomenally more financially lucrative to the point that any of us would be insane not to take it. But a lot of those who aim for this end up with a handful of caps only and then don't play internationally again. I wouldn't hold their choice against them, but it could benefit the PI teams to have access to them.

It is not a silver bullet though and could equally encourage players to give NZ/Aus a "go" before returning to their own teams.

PTH2009

New Zealand and South Africa vs Canada wont be pretty for the canadians

Is there any point in having lower teams in this competition. Could they have there own kind of world cup and maybe top 3/4 go into the WC with the top teams (6 Nations and Rugby championship teams)

ClanofLams

It’s fine the way it is for me. Obviously it would be brilliant if there could be higher standards and more competitive games across the board.

It wouldn’t work as an ongoing league but a once in every four years event one sided games are alright albeit not desirable. Today’s result could really help Uruguay rugby in a way that beating Fiji in a lower tier competition just wouldn’t garner anywhere close to same level of attention.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It should not matter, the TMO is there for a reason and NEEDS to be bringing tackles like that to the attention of the Ref, no matter if the player gets up or not.

That is what they are there for, no?

Should be shown at every training session this week
"How to tackle a bigger player, fairly"

scott1974

Woodward reckons Quills tackle could have ended Farrells career.. but Hodges tackle was grand. ��

scott1974

scott1974 wrote: »

Woodward reckons Quills tackle could have ended Farrells career.. but Hodges tackle was grand. ��

Exactly

Dog Botherer

scott1974 wrote: »

Woodward reckons Quills tackle could have ended Farrells career.. but Hodges tackle was grand. ��

I see you are unfamiliar with the normal level of Woodward's analysis.

AbusesToilets

thomond2006 wrote: »

The pool stages as they are aren't great.
Three of the pools are essentially two mini-pools of a battle for first place and a battle for third place.

With MLR in place, the US and Canada are the teams you'd hope would rise in standard over the next 5-10 years. The US has an insane number of athletes competing as unpaid professionals at collegiate level. The potential talent pool is there.

The Pacific Island nations are a tricky one. Their talent pool is already in place between local and granny rule players but finances and legitimate governance (see Samoa in 2011 as an example) will always be an issue.

With the recent improvement in Bennetton (and their head coach signed until 2022), Italy should be making progress. However they have big names to replace over the next RWC cycle.

Right now there are nine teams that are relevant at a RWC quarter-final standard. Increasing that to 12/13 would make a massive difference to the tournament.

I've long thought that the RWC would be improved with a Plate championship for the 3/4 place teams from the group stages, a la the U20s or 7s tournaments. Gives them more to play for and outright more game against good competition.

The Lost Sheep

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I've long thought that the RWC would be improved with a Plate championship for the 3/4 place teams from the group stages, a la the U20s or 7s tournaments. Gives them more to play for and outright more game against good competition.

I dont think that really is the answer. The sides who finish 3rd/4th who arent in 6 nations etc need more games in the 47 months of the world cup cycle against stronger sides not in the one month of the full cycle that they do get access to players.
Give them more games, access to players to play in those games and training camps.
I dont think we should go down line of a plate competition in the main competition we have for the sport.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Should be shown at every training session this week
"How to tackle a bigger player, fairly"

That's all well and good if a player tries to run around you, like Lomu did. If he squared up to him, ala the Mike Catt incident, then sliding down the legs to the ankles isn't an option.

Shefwedfan

scott1974 wrote: »

Woodward reckons Quills tackle could have ended Farrells career.. but Hodges tackle was grand. ��

I flicked over and heard Woodward’s “analysis”....for a moment I thought they had beaten NZ.....

Basil3

Basil3 wrote: »

That's all well and good if a player tries to run around you, like Lomu did. If he squared up to him, ala the Mike Catt incident, then sliding down the legs to the ankles isn't an option.

Then you tackle thighs, or from side, or a a wrap and back

Piers Francis cited

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Should be shown at every training session this week
"How to tackle a bigger player, fairly"

I love the commentator saying he lost his footing. The invisible Peter Stringer.

https://twitter.com/kenneth4215/status/1177261853044543488?s=20

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kenneth4215/status/1177261853044543488?s=20

Excellent bit of video editing there. But I think tweet of the moment goes to Rúaidhrí O'Connor for this gem, just after it happened.

Dave_The_Sheep

What do you mean there's no game today. I'm used to it now.

Cookiemunster

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

What do you mean there's no game today. I'm used to it now.

Pro14 tonight to get you through till tomorrow!

Weepsie

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

Move back from a Tier 1? The whole point of international rugby is representing your country. Granted with it’s become a bit blurred with the 3 year rule, but why should there be an allowance for a player to go and make money playing for Abs/Oz then when they aren’t wanted go back to Fiji/Tonga? I’d nearly protest that solution more then the 3 year one.

If they’re so proud of their bloody heritage as they say they are they would play for them and earn their money at club level.

The won't get paid at club level though is what it seems to be. Being held to ransom over contracts to represent a different nation. When you're coming from very little it can be very hard to turn down you imagine.

If World Rugby had funds to ensure that these nations could give decent central contracts to players to supplement their club pay then that might be a start.


Also, about time someone pinged farrell, not that you want to see it, but he's gotten away with so many of those it's ludicrous so maybe he'll wise up himself. Inconsitent in game too. USA won't have won against 14, but they'd have tired them out sooner.

pc7

Only caught the highlights of Eng V USA, did Farrell not go for a HIA after that tackle. I know its his nose but his head had to have rattled, he seemed to be still on at the end? again only caught highlights.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Piers Francis cited

This one has me absolutely baffled. It's literally the kick off of the game - it's the first contact and it was obviously high. Look back at the match thread - everyone saw the same thing and yet the TMO and ref ignored what was an obvious citing in the making.

I really have no idea what is going on with refereeing this tournament. Trying to give the benefit of the doubt but what World Rugby are saying and what their ref's are doing are at odds. Seems to be a total reluctance to give red cards early in games or else they are looking to reduce the late hits on play makers. The level of inconsistency suggests to me at this point that referees have a set of instructions that the rest of us are not privy too.

pc7 wrote: »

Only caught the highlights of Eng V USA, did Farrell not go for a HIA after that tackle. I know its his nose but his head had to have rattled, he seemed to be still on at the end? again only caught highlights.

I think the brunt of the hit (stopping power) was more on his shoulder / upper chest. There was contact with the jaw but he pulled his head back last second and I'm not sure he got more than a glancing blow. He was down long enough to ensure the contact was reviewed, but he sprung onto his feet before a serious head injury looked likely. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this is being coached. In fact I'm fairly certain it is being coached.

It was pure simulation. Designed to ensure a review.

While it's scummy to simulate, it just shows that the TMO's failing at their jobs

Anjobe

It was a terrible tackle though, can't believe the citing committee decided it was reckless rather than deliberate and only gave Quill 3 weeks.

Also, no citing for the tackle on Launchbury (can't remember the American tackler)? Definite contact between the tackler's head and the ball carriers head, which fits World Rugby's definition of a high tackle, and the fact that it was a "dominate" tackle would indicate high danger.

All still consistently inconsistent then!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It was pure simulation. Designed to ensure a review.

While it's scummy to simulate, it just shows that the TMO's failing at their jobs

Ah it was a big hit and a justified red. Farrell certainly could have been hurt and hurt badly. But had the American fullback reacted the same way at the kick off England would have played with 14. That is hugely significant and a good example within the one game of how problematic inconsistency is here.

If it was something not at all obvious, off the ball or buried in a ruck you would say fair enough.

But the bloody kick off to start the match resulting in shoulder to head contact and nothing happened. Madness.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah it was a big hit and a justified red. Farrell certainly could have been hurt and hurt badly. But had the American fullback reacted the same way at the kick off England would have played with 14. That is hugely significant and a good example within the one game of how problematic inconsistency is here.

If it was something not at all obvious, off the ball or buried in a ruck you would say fair enough.

But the bloody kick off to start the match resulting in shoulder to head contact and nothing happened. Madness.

Agree on all points.
The simulation was to enforce a review because the officials are bottling it match in match out

Tomtom364

Perhaps it is memory failing me but there seems to be a load more citings in this RWC then previous years.

Refs en masse copping out and letting the citing commissioners do the heavy lifting? That's not how it's supposed to work.

Podge_irl

Tomtom364 wrote: »

Perhaps it is memory failing me but there seems to be a load more citings in this RWC then previous years.

Refs en masse copping out and letting the citing commissioners do the heavy lifting? That's not how it's supposed to work.

It’s the absolute worst way of handling it. As others have pointed out, a citing post match can actually harm the team who the foul was committed against.

To miss this many red cards reflects absolutely appallingly on the match officials.

sydthebeat

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I’ve never seen that before I don’t think

Canadas tacking rate revised to 62% after the game

Russias stats after the samoa was 56%. :eek:

Amazingly due to the fact they had 62% of possession but still managed to only make 57 out of 101 tackles, with the samoas beating 44 defenders in the process


the Russians averaged 2.08m per carry, whereas the Samoans averaged 4.85m

not a good stat for a half back to review on.

Tomtom364

Tomtom364 wrote: »

Perhaps it is memory failing me but there seems to be a load more citings in this RWC then previous years.

Refs en masse copping out and letting the citing commissioners do the heavy lifting? That's not how it's supposed to work.

Apparently 23 citings during the pool stages in the last RWC.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11934671/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-A-review-of-each-citing-from-the-pool-stages.html

What are we up to so far in this world cup?

prawnsambo

Basil3 wrote: »

Apparently 23 citings during the pool stages in the last RWC.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11934671/Rugby-World-Cup-2015-A-review-of-each-citing-from-the-pool-stages.html

What are we up to so far in this world cup?

Six? 1 from Oz, 2 from Samoa, 1 England, 1 USA and... Can't think of any more.

Edit: An Argentinian as well. Any more?

RugbyLover123

Weepsie wrote: »

The won't get paid at club level though is what it seems to be. Being held to ransom over contracts to represent a different nation. When you're coming from very little it can be very hard to turn down you imagine.

If World Rugby had funds to ensure that these nations could give decent central contracts to players to supplement their club pay then that might be a start.

World Rugby need to intervene in a massive way. There should be no player ‘retiring’ before a World Cup. If called upon the player shouldn’t be allowed play for their club for a period of time. And the club should be fined.

They should also negotiate in their contract about playing for their national team. Islanders are often game changers and the most talented in any team and their pay should represent that.

Sick of these islanders claiming they love their nation and where they come from etc but are no better then the lads taking advantage of the 3 year rule. Sevu Reece and Koroibete have the Fiji flag in their Instagram bios. I’m sure they are getting paid well at club level.

joseywhales

You understand this is their job right? It's how they feed their families. I don't think they have a obligation to risk their health and play if they don't want to. They aren't indentured servants or anything.

RugbyLover123

I doubt any islander that has an opportunity of playing for NZ or Oz is struggling to put food on the table

Jump_In_Jack

Don’t blame the players, blame the game.
Players mostly will opt for money over patriotism.
If it elevates your entire family out of poverty for generations you can hardly blame them.

blackwhite

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

I doubt any islander that has an opportunity of playing for NZ or Oz is struggling to put food on the table

They’ve a max 15 year window to earn enough to last them for possibly 50 years or more. All the while knowing that one injury could end their career - with probably 2/3 high-value contracts at most within that period.

It’s very hard to blame them for doing whatever they can to maximise their earnings whilst they are at their peak.

Squidgy Black

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

Sick of these islanders claiming they love their nation and where they come from etc but are no better then the lads taking advantage of the 3 year rule. Sevu Reece and Koroibete have the Fiji flag in their Instagram bios. I’m sure they are getting paid well at club level.

This is a rather ignorant view point and I'd strongly suggest watching the documentary by Dan Leo about Rupeni Caucaunibuca or listen to Ben Ryan talk about his time working with Fiji.

These players come from absolutely dirt poor countries, living in shacks and in a lot of cases are almost illiterate and are supporting full villages back home. The Fijian Rugby Union doesn't pay players and it costs them quite a lot to cover travel etc. Clubs are taking advantage of their economic situation and forcing their hand when it comes to international representation in a lot of cases, threatening to pull contracts or slash wages at renewal if they play.

The lads your pointing out are ones who left the islands when they were 17/18, in search of a way to support their families and not live a life of sheer poverty.

If World Rugby really wants to do something with the Pacific Islanders, they'll overthrow the existing Unions, which are corrupt and controlled by military officials and are bleeding any money that comes in.

Leinstertomas

14-0 to Argentina already. Could be a long day for Tonga

Oops!

Over the line again.....They've been asleep for the first 20 mins.

razorblunt

Should be a penalty try to Tonga.

razorblunt

Holy crap, that’s awful officiating there was no wrap of the left arm , it was down by his side, pure shoulder. But the TMO and Peyper called it, unless I’m missing something ?

Oops!

Awful decision! He just shoulder barged him off the field.

razorblunt

No surprise it’s Peyper involved in that decision, nor Ben O Keeffe on the line but the TMO involvement was worse of all. One camera angle and a review over in a couple of seconds.

Simon Ward on ITV comms is awful just credited the Tongan sub as recovering from testicular cancer, wrong player though.