I'v spoken to people from World Rugby and the SRU today about the typhoon disruption. The following seems relevant -
1. All teams signed up to the tournament rules, but they were mindful of the 'robust contingency plans' said to be in place.
1. All teams signed up to the tournament rules, but they were mindful of the 'robust contingency plans' said to be in place.
2. The typhoon, whilst large and potentially destructive, will not affect the whole country. There are places where posponed games could be played on the scheduled days or shortly after.
3. 2 camps - those wanting to stick to agreement & those wanting flexibility
3. 2 camps - those wanting to stick to agreement & those wanting flexibility
4. I'm told New Zealand, and this comes from the people I spoke to, not me, insisted on sticking rigidly to the rules because they didn't want a shorter turnaround before the 1/4 finals. They are perfectly entitled to take this view.
5. Scotland will argue that the force majeure clause in the agreement allows the rules to be varied by agreement of the participants and World Rugby. I'm told that Japan are embarassed about the issue and would play later if allowed.
6. Italy, though vey remote potential qualifiers wanted to play later.
7. Though the cost and logistics are difficult, the teams who want to play offered just to take their squads and ancillary staff.
8. WR insist cancellation of all affected games is the only fair solution.
7. Though the cost and logistics are difficult, the teams who want to play offered just to take their squads and ancillary staff.
8. WR insist cancellation of all affected games is the only fair solution.
From me
a. Rules shouldn't be absolute in extreme situations. No team created the difficulty but some are getting an advantage.
b. Some say teams on their last chance should have played better earlier, but it depends on the pool draw. Some, like England, had easier games 1st.
a. Rules shouldn't be absolute in extreme situations. No team created the difficulty but some are getting an advantage.
b. Some say teams on their last chance should have played better earlier, but it depends on the pool draw. Some, like England, had easier games 1st.
c. Unless it's impossible, qualification should be by playing cost and disruption irrelevant.
d. I know it is not simple to move squads and support staff but surely contingency plans did, or should have, anticipated this.
d. I know it is not simple to move squads and support staff but surely contingency plans did, or should have, anticipated this.
e. If it's too dangerous for fans, play behind closed doors. I'm sure fans would prefer this to their team exiting without a game.
f. The wider rugby/sporting viewers have already reacted negatively
f. The wider rugby/sporting viewers have already reacted negatively
g. In a flagship event, every effort, short of the practically impossible, should be made to play the games as drawn even if not as scheduled.
h. I'm not minimising the gravity of this & sympathise with WR but this hasn't been good for the game's image.
h. I'm not minimising the gravity of this & sympathise with WR but this hasn't been good for the game's image.
i. I'm constantly told rugby is a player's game and there are players, long-serving and single caps, who will not have the chance to play in another RWC.
