Men's Rugby Union World Cup 2023

[Nearly Sane]

The madness of doing the seedings for the World Cup in September 2023 based on rankings on the 1st Jan 2020 means that on current rankings the top 5 teams in the world are in groups A and B, and that 2 teams from those ranked 6-10 or lower are guaranteed to make the semi finals.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Rugby_World_Cup

[jeremyp]

Yep. No other major tournament would consider that.

[Nearly Sane]

One take on how doing the draw now would affect it.


https://www.rugbyworld.com/news/how-would-the-rugby-world-cup-pools-look-based-on-todays-rankings-150486

[jeremyp]

One take on how doing the draw now would affect it.


https://www.rugbyworld.com/news/how-would-the-rugby-world-cup-pools-look-based-on-todays-rankings-150486

Definitely would be fairer, although I think Scotland's high ranking is something of an aberration.

[ProfessorDavey]

The madness of doing the seedings for the World Cup in September 2023 based on rankings on the 1st Jan 2020 means that on current rankings the top 5 teams in the world are in groups A and B, and that 2 teams from those ranked 6-10 or lower are guaranteed to make the semi finals.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Rugby_World_Cup

Absolutely crazy - and I've made this point in relation to the previous world cup too.

Why the RWC needs to announce the groups 3 years in advance of the tournament is beyond me. The football world cup, which let's face it is a far bigger and more complex tournament, typically draws the teams for the group stage about 6 months ahead of the tournament starting. The RWC should be drawing the groups for the Autumn straight after the 6 nations, based on March 2023 rankings.

It really frustrates me - the RWC is by far the biggest show in town in rugby union, but it keeps shooting itself in the foot with bizarre operational details. The other non-sense is having a tournament of 20 teams when there clearly aren't that number of teams vaguely competitive. It should reduce the number to 16 teams - four groups of 4 which would sort out the whole bonkers stretched out fixtures approach.

[Nearly Sane]

Agree, and given the demands of rugby union, one less match to play would make a lot of sense.

[ProfessorDavey]

Agree, and given the demands of rugby union, one less match to play would make a lot of sense.

Absolutely - but apparently not all teams are equal in terms of 'demands'. So Namibia are require to play their four group stage matches in an 18 day period, while France (in the same group) have a leisurely 28 days to complete their four matches.

But was always thus - the big teams given an advantageous gap between matches while they come thick and fast for the minnows.

But you are correct the upshot is not only too many matches, but a tournament that is oh so slow to get going. The whole football world cup was complete, start to finish, in 28 days. Four weeks from the start of the RWC and there will still be a bunch of group stage matches still to play and the knockout stage will still be over a week away.

[SqueakyVoice]

Um,

Absolutely crazy - ... The football world cup, which let's face it is a fart bigger ...

Have I misread it or is it something I've missed? 🤔

[ProfessorDavey]

Um,Have I misread it or is it something I've missed? 🤔

Oooops

Corrected - but actually I think the Cricket World Cup is fart bigger again ... because they have the Windies.

[SqueakyVoice]

SBorthwick is picking Smith ahead of Farrell.

This game is still France's choice. Either they batter England, or they'll implode. I think Shaun Edwards won't let them implode (and should have been recruited as England's coach a long time ago, IMO.)
It might affect the WC, with Smith as a great white hope (/ dark horse?).
 
I know that's a rubbish prediction, so, to be clear, either France will win, or England will. Or it'll be a draw. I hope that's understood.

[Nearly Sane]

I think batter is the word.

[Nearly Sane]

.

[SqueakyVoice]

IMO, that was Shaun Edwards 53, England Rugby Committee  0.

[SqueakyVoice]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/mar/15/england-ireland-owen-farrell-injury-fears-six-nations-rugby-union

There's  a quote about doing the same thing over and over again and hoping  it will change (as source of madness).

SB'wick repicking OF might as well be Boxer's quote, "We must work harder."
Or to borrow another quote OFFS.

[ProfessorDavey]

This whole Owen Farrell business is becoming a complete farce:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66540494

So an on-field decision ...

Is overturned by an off-field decision ...

Which is overturned by a different off-field decision ...

And potentially may be overturned again by yet another off-field decision.

How long does this go on!

And the laws themselves are pretty impenetrable in the first place. This is where rugby just loses me.

[Outrider]

This whole Owen Farrell business is becoming a complete farce:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66540494

So an on-field decision ...

Is overturned by an off-field decision ...

Which is overturned by a different off-field decision ...

And potentially may be overturned again by yet another off-field decision.

How long does this go on!

And the laws themselves are pretty impenetrable in the first place. This is where rugby just loses me.

The on-field decision was not over-turned, it was enhanced, but otherwise... I wish I knew what Owen Farrell had on the IRB. It's not even an attempt to tackle - whether he went high or not, there's no arms involved, it's a blatant shoulder charge, and far from his first.

The only thing that's truly surprised me in all of this was finding out that it's Farrell's first red card!

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The on-field decision was not over-turned, it was enhanced,

Semantics - what I mean is that there seems to be an almost endless process by which an earlier decision is looked at again and potentially changed. The on-field decision of a yellow was overturned/changed/enhanced (delete as appropriate, it amounts to the same thing) and became a red. Fair enough that's what the process is there to do, like VAR in football.

And it is reasonable that a red card may then be challenged under an appeal process - this has happened. But there now seems to be an appeal process to the appeal process to the off-field video decision during match time to the original referees decision on-field.

That is one step to many - fine to have a later appeal against a red card (this happens in all kinds of sports) - but an appeal against the appeal  

... but otherwise... I wish I knew what Owen Farrell had on the IRB. It's not even an attempt to tackle - whether he went high or not, there's no arms involved, it's a blatant shoulder charge, and far from his first.

The only thing that's truly surprised me in all of this was finding out that it's Farrell's first red card!

O.

I'm not arguing with the decision and frankly the rules are so opaque that it seems that no-one really knows, given that a decision by the expert on-field referee was then changed by the expert video ref, which was then changed by the off-field expert appeal panel which may ... who knows ... be changed by another expert off-field appeal panel.

If it was so clear cut how come these experts seem unable to agree.

But I come back to my point - it isn't the decision, it is the number of stages, which is frankly ridiculous and makes the sport's official bodies look like a laughing stock in my opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

The on-field decision was not over-turned, it was enhanced, but otherwise... I wish I knew what Owen Farrell had on the IRB. It's not even an attempt to tackle - whether he went high or not, there's no arms involved, it's a blatant shoulder charge, and far from his first.

The only thing that's truly surprised me in all of this was finding out that it's Farrell's first red card!

O.

There is another point with all this multi-layer decision/decision/appeal/appeal stuff, which is when any ban kicks in.

Currently Farrell is, presumably, not banned - as the current decision is 'yellow'. So while I understand that he's not going to be picked on Saturday anyhow would that game form part of his ban or not part of his ban should the appeal to the appeal panel decide to reinstate the red, which was previously a yellow, which was previously a red, which was previously a yellow!

Complete fiasco.

[jeremyp]

Currently Farrell is, presumably, not banned - as the current decision is 'yellow'. So while I understand that he's not going to be picked on Saturday anyhow would that game form part of his ban or not part of his ban should the appeal to the appeal panel decide to reinstate the red, which was previously a yellow, which was previously a red, which was previously a yellow!

This is the problem. There are two games left before the RWC which could have counted as part of the ban and they probably won't, unless there is a rule that says games not played pending the appeal decision count towards the ban.

The whole process is making rugby look ridiculous (on top of the ridiculous seeding system).

[ProfessorDavey]

The whole process is making rugby look ridiculous (on top of the ridiculous seeding system).

Too true.

So as we head into the world cup:

Pool A contains teams ranked 2 and 3 in the world.
Pool B contains teams ranked 1, 4 and 5 in the world.

Yet the highest ranked team in Pool C is ranked 8th.

It is just bonkers - and it keeps happening. I could accept that the tournament organisers might screw up once, but having had the non-sense of picking the pools three years ahead of the tournament they keep doing it.

And I think this speaks to an inherent small-c conservatism in rugby, possibly still a hang-over from the amateur days. An inherent reluctance to tweak anything that is seems to be historically how things are done - however broken.

For all the faults in cricket (and there are many) at least they seem willing to be enterprising, to evolve the game and try new stuff - good example being the phenomenon that is T20, including the world leading tournament that is the IPL - probably one of the biggest sporting tournaments on the planet now.

But rugby is just stuck - the only major innovations I can see, in decades, are the World Cup itself (but that started nearly 40 years ago and needs some serious tweaking of the format) and adding Italy to the 5/6 nations in 2000 (which was very much a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted as they were already in decline at that point and their continued presence year after year is just a joke).

The 6 nations needs to actually mean something - some format that involves relegation or that being ranked high qualifies you for something else (like the Champions league), so that the later rounds actually matter to all the teams. And don't get me started on the British Lions - a format that is defeatist in its very concept in accepting that the only way you can be competitive against southern hemisphere opposition is to combine four teams. New Zealand, Australia and South Africa must be laughing all the way to their almost inevitable world cup wins as they get hugely valuable training matches in their preparations for the world cup.

Rant over

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note a new North and South biennial tournament is due to start in 2026

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66074883

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to note a new North and South biennial tournament is due to start in 2026

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66074883

This idea, or something similar, has been knocking around for years but never seems to come to fruition.

But the concept remains flawed - what is the point of simply including all 6 nations and rugby championship sides. If this is the case there remains no incentive for a team in the 6 nations who have lost perhaps the first couple of games to fight really hard to end up third so that they qualify for this tournament. Realistically all this seems to be is turning the Autumn internationals and summer tours into some kind of 'tournament'.

A much better format would be one where perhaps just the teams that finish in the top half of each existing tournament qualify. That would make the 6 nations ranking actually matter, as currently unless you win it is completely irrelevant if you finish second, third or fifth.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to note a new North and South biennial tournament is due to start in 2026

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/66074883

As I said in my previous post - this simply fails to deal with issue that finishing low down in the 6 nations has no consequences, so some later stage matches simply become totally irrelevant.

Here is my proposal.

A 6 team tournament played every two years. Qualification is based on the combined outcomes of the previous two years 6 nations and rugby championship tournaments (to deal with the anomaly that in the 6 nations each year some teams play 3 home games and others 3 away games). The teams that finish in the top half qualify automatically for the new tournament, so that's 3 from the 6 nations and 2 from the rugby championship. The final place is decided in a home/away play-off between the team ranked 4th in the 6 nations and the team ranked 3rd in the rugby championship.

At a stroke this will keep interest in those tournaments going right until the very end.

The new tournament itself - two groups of three teams play each other home and away, so four games each. Bottom side is eliminated. One-off semi between the winner of one group and second placed side of the other, with home advantage to the team finishing top of their group. A one-off final in a location predetermined, like the Champions league final. This would give teams knock-out match experience, which they simply don't get anywhere else other than the once in four years World Cup.

My final tweak - back to the two year cycle of the 6 nations and rugby championship tournaments - the team that finishes bottom goes into a play-off with the 'best of the rest' team from their part of the world (not sure if we really have a proper second division, but that would also be a good thing). The winner plays in the 6 nations or rugby championship tournaments for the next two years. Better than a straight promotion/relegation as there seems to be a massive gulf (in the 6 nations, not so much in the rugby championship) so you'd just get constant yo-yo - team goes up goes straight back down.

[jeremyp]

As I said in my previous post - this simply fails to deal with issue that finishing low down in the 6 nations has no consequences, so some later stage matches simply become totally irrelevant.

Here is my proposal.

A 6 team tournament played every two years. Qualification is based on the combined outcomes of the previous two years 6 nations and rugby championship tournaments (to deal with the anomaly that in the 6 nations each year some teams play 3 home games and others 3 away games). The teams that finish in the top half qualify automatically for the new tournament, so that's 3 from the 6 nations and 2 from the rugby championship. The final place is decided in a home/away play-off between the team ranked 4th in the 6 nations and the team ranked 3rd in the rugby championship.

At a stroke this will keep interest in those tournaments going right until the very end.

The new tournament itself - two groups of three teams play each other home and away, so four games each. Bottom side is eliminated. One-off semi between the winner of one group and second placed side of the other, with home advantage to the team finishing top of their group. A one-off final in a location predetermined, like the Champions league final. This would give teams knock-out match experience, which they simply don't get anywhere else other than the once in four years World Cup.

My final tweak - back to the two year cycle of the 6 nations and rugby championship tournaments - the team that finishes bottom goes into a play-off with the 'best of the rest' team from their part of the world (not sure if we really have a proper second division, but that would also be a good thing). The winner plays in the 6 nations or rugby championship tournaments for the next two years. Better than a straight promotion/relegation as there seems to be a massive gulf (in the 6 nations, not so much in the rugby championship) so you'd just get constant yo-yo - team goes up goes straight back down.

Why not just take the top three from the 6N and the Rugby Championship? A playoff between the fourth best Northern side and the third best Southern side is likely to be no more than a formality.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why not just take the top three from the 6N and the Rugby Championship?

Because one involves six teams, the other just four.

Plus it will help ensure that flighting to be one place higher in either tournament makes a difference. The one exception being second/third in the 6 nations. But then as this is based on two seasons of results even that will come into play in a single season.