Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Are you:

For
6
10%
Against
53
90%
 
Total votes : 59
User avatar
Posts: 2919
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby 4N » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 00:21

iul wrote:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2019/03/07/exclusive-english-french-clubs-threaten-legal-action-world-league/
Frenglish clubs threatening legal action


Full text:

Spoiler:
World Rugby’s controversial plan for a new nations championship has suffered a major blow with both the English and French clubs threatening to take legal action against the governing body, Telegraph Sport can disclose.

It is understood that Premiership Rugby and Ligue Nationale de Rugby are considering action because they regard the proposal for an annual 12-side tournament to be “in clear breach of the San Francisco agreement”, the accord struck by World Rugby in January 2017 to guarantee the structure of the global season to 2032.

Telegraph Sport has seen a copy of a letter sent by LNR chairman Paul Goze to World Rugby chairman Bill Beaumont expressing its frustration at a lack of consultation with the French Top 14 clubs over the project, also known as the “World League”, and warning that legal action could be taken unless “major concerns” were addressed.

A Premiership source said on Thursday that the English clubs were “100 per cent” behind their French counterparts ahead of crunch talks in Dublin next Thursday and had been angered that they had not been invited to take part in the negotiations, which will be attended by the heads of all tier-one unions, plus Japan and Fiji, and the International Rugby Players organisation.

Sources said English clubs were “astonished” they were not part of the process to plan the future of world rugby having been led to believe that the San Francisco accord have provided certainty for the next 12 years.

The English clubs have also recently come to an agreement with the Rugby Football Union that front-line players such as Owen Farrell and Maro Itoje would be rested for summer tours in the year after World Cups for player welfare purposes.

“We quite sensibly have put in a break there for player welfare purposes,” said one source. “And another principle of San Francisco was that we were meant to help the developing nations in the summer after the World Cup, with England going to Japan next year while the senior players are given time off to recover.

“This has got to be seen in a four-year World Cup cycle. World Cup, summer off, Lions tour, tour of some sorts to get the players ready for the World Cup a year before the World Cup. World Rugby say they are addressing player welfare but how do you rest the top players when a team is involved in competitive games across the year?”

European Champions Cup sources are also thought to be perplexed about the proposal, after World Rugby released a video on Wednesday confirming that the climax of the tournament was proposed to be played over five weekends in November and December. World Rugby regulations state the international window covers three Tests.

Another source said: “World Rugby are trying to impose a model without consulting us while trying to wreck the tournaments already in place here which are generating significant revenues for the game. It simply has no chance of going through.”

Significantly, the publication of the details about the proposed tournament, which would introduce promotion and relegation to the Six Nations as part of the over-arching competition that would also take in the Rugby Championship and climaxing with play-offs in November, does not appear to have any positive impact on the RFU’s position, which is said to be “at best tepid” to the proposal ahead of the talks next week.

“The RFU remains to be convinced that the world league proposals are a better option than we have today,” said an RFU spokeswoman. “Player welfare is very important to us, and at the moment we have more questions than answers on a number of fronts.” World Rugby declined to comment.

Meanwhile, the RFU’s plan to axe the England Sevens side as part of a cost-cutting move to save £2 million per year by moving permanently to a “Team GB” model has received a luke-warm reception from their Scottish counterparts.

The RFU believes the savings would be made as the Scottish and Welsh unions would have to help with the costs, while it would then also attract Olympic funding from UK Sport.

The Scottish Rugby Union, however, has given no indication that it is prepared to switch its own Sevens programme permanently to a Great Britain model outside of Olympic years.

“The Scotland Sevens programmes are an integral part of our player development pathway, providing competitive environments to support the objective of developing players for the 15-a-side game,” said a spokesman.

“We are in regular dialogue with the RFU and WRU, as was the case ahead of Rio 2016, around the qualification process and forward planning for the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, where the aim again is to have Team GB Sevens sides competing.”

Posts: 5472
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby thatrugbyguy » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 00:27

This is how a RWC qualifying structure could work that could be sold to broadcasters:

2020 - Qualifying Round 1
2021 - Qualifying Round 2
2021 - November: Regional Playoffs
2022 - July: Continental Playoffs
2022 - November: Repechage

Here's why this would be beneficial:

• It would be merit based, so teams who sit in a higher division have an easier path to RWC
• It would driver bigger audiences because not only is there an opportunity to play higher ranked teams but because there's more on the line.
• It would mean more T1 v T2 matches because some T1 nations would have to play their RWC qualifiers in July, meaning other T1 nations will have to find someone else to play. eg. If Italy and Scotland are playing Continental Playoffs in July instead of touring the Southern Hemisphere like they normally would, it would mean nations like Australia and New Zealand would have to fill the space in their July test schedule. So not only would T2/T3 nations be exposed to more games against higher quality opposition in qualifiers, they are more likely to be given an opportunity outside of that by virtue of T1 nations needing someone to play.
• It adds more meaning to test matches whilst preserving the integrity of the World Cup.

Posts: 533
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby carbonero » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 00:45

4N wrote:
carbonero wrote:And 4N, stop quoting Gregor Paul. He is without doubt the biggest hater of emerging nations in rugby media. He just called the expanded TRC a “joke competition”.

He’s the guy who broke the story. Obviously has some good sources and knows what’s happening behind the scenes. Not pretending he is T2 advocate.

Read his columns. He is an unhinged homer. Never broke a story in his whole life. And the original report wasn’t backed by any other major media outlet.

Posts: 5472
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby thatrugbyguy » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 00:49

Sounds like everybody was kept out of the loop on this one.

Posts: 162
Joined: Wed, 28 Oct 2015, 04:30
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby nick511 » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 00:50

thatrugbyguy wrote:• It would be merit based, so teams who sit in a higher division have an easier path to RWC
• It would driver bigger audiences because not only is there an opportunity to play higher ranked teams but because there's more on the line.
• It would mean more T1 v T2 matches because some T1 nations would have to play their RWC qualifiers in July, meaning other T1 nations will have to find someone else to play. eg. If Italy and Scotland are playing Continental Playoffs in July instead of touring the Southern Hemisphere like they normally would, it would mean nations like Australia and New Zealand would have to fill the space in their July test schedule. So not only would T2/T3 nations be exposed to more games against higher quality opposition in qualifiers, they are more likely to be given an opportunity outside of that by virtue of T1 nations needing someone to play.
• It adds more meaning to test matches whilst preserving the integrity of the World Cup.


I don't think anyone is disagreeing with scraping the automatic qualifiers or lowering it to 4 or the champions + host. Ideally you would have the 6 Nations and TRC as qualifiers for the world cup, with the lower finishes in those competitions playing off for spots. I've always thought that WR are missing out by not having more meaningful qualifiers. But the tier 1's don't want to have to qualify so maybe this competition could lead to getting rid of a lot of the automatic places down the road.

Posts: 458
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby Blurandski » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 01:05

4N wrote:
iul wrote:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2019/03/07/exclusive-english-french-clubs-threaten-legal-action-world-league/
Frenglish clubs threatening legal action


Full text:

Spoiler:
World Rugby’s controversial plan for a new nations championship has suffered a major blow with both the English and French clubs threatening to take legal action against the governing body, Telegraph Sport can disclose.

It is understood that Premiership Rugby and Ligue Nationale de Rugby are considering action because they regard the proposal for an annual 12-side tournament to be “in clear breach of the San Francisco agreement”, the accord struck by World Rugby in January 2017 to guarantee the structure of the global season to 2032.

Telegraph Sport has seen a copy of a letter sent by LNR chairman Paul Goze to World Rugby chairman Bill Beaumont expressing its frustration at a lack of consultation with the French Top 14 clubs over the project, also known as the “World League”, and warning that legal action could be taken unless “major concerns” were addressed.

A Premiership source said on Thursday that the English clubs were “100 per cent” behind their French counterparts ahead of crunch talks in Dublin next Thursday and had been angered that they had not been invited to take part in the negotiations, which will be attended by the heads of all tier-one unions, plus Japan and Fiji, and the International Rugby Players organisation.

Sources said English clubs were “astonished” they were not part of the process to plan the future of world rugby having been led to believe that the San Francisco accord have provided certainty for the next 12 years.

The English clubs have also recently come to an agreement with the Rugby Football Union that front-line players such as Owen Farrell and Maro Itoje would be rested for summer tours in the year after World Cups for player welfare purposes.

“We quite sensibly have put in a break there for player welfare purposes,” said one source. “And another principle of San Francisco was that we were meant to help the developing nations in the summer after the World Cup, with England going to Japan next year while the senior players are given time off to recover.

“This has got to be seen in a four-year World Cup cycle. World Cup, summer off, Lions tour, tour of some sorts to get the players ready for the World Cup a year before the World Cup. World Rugby say they are addressing player welfare but how do you rest the top players when a team is involved in competitive games across the year?”

European Champions Cup sources are also thought to be perplexed about the proposal, after World Rugby released a video on Wednesday confirming that the climax of the tournament was proposed to be played over five weekends in November and December. World Rugby regulations state the international window covers three Tests.

Another source said: “World Rugby are trying to impose a model without consulting us while trying to wreck the tournaments already in place here which are generating significant revenues for the game. It simply has no chance of going through.”

Significantly, the publication of the details about the proposed tournament, which would introduce promotion and relegation to the Six Nations as part of the over-arching competition that would also take in the Rugby Championship and climaxing with play-offs in November, does not appear to have any positive impact on the RFU’s position, which is said to be “at best tepid” to the proposal ahead of the talks next week.

“The RFU remains to be convinced that the world league proposals are a better option than we have today,” said an RFU spokeswoman. “Player welfare is very important to us, and at the moment we have more questions than answers on a number of fronts.” World Rugby declined to comment.

Meanwhile, the RFU’s plan to axe the England Sevens side as part of a cost-cutting move to save £2 million per year by moving permanently to a “Team GB” model has received a luke-warm reception from their Scottish counterparts.

The RFU believes the savings would be made as the Scottish and Welsh unions would have to help with the costs, while it would then also attract Olympic funding from UK Sport.

The Scottish Rugby Union, however, has given no indication that it is prepared to switch its own Sevens programme permanently to a Great Britain model outside of Olympic years.

“The Scotland Sevens programmes are an integral part of our player development pathway, providing competitive environments to support the objective of developing players for the 15-a-side game,” said a spokesman.

“We are in regular dialogue with the RFU and WRU, as was the case ahead of Rio 2016, around the qualification process and forward planning for the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, where the aim again is to have Team GB Sevens sides competing.”


4 weeks in November will be the absolute limit IMO.

So final 2 only, then the pro/rel playoffs, everyone else in D1 then play a D2 side in the fourth week, and bam the job's a good 'un.

User avatar
Posts: 2919
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby 4N » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 01:20

carbonero wrote:
4N wrote:
carbonero wrote:And 4N, stop quoting Gregor Paul. He is without doubt the biggest hater of emerging nations in rugby media. He just called the expanded TRC a “joke competition”.

He’s the guy who broke the story. Obviously has some good sources and knows what’s happening behind the scenes. Not pretending he is T2 advocate.

Read his columns. He is an unhinged homer. Never broke a story in his whole life. And the original report wasn’t backed by any other major media outlet.


Well he’s Scottish so I think it’s more that he’s writing for his audience. Has anyone refuted anything from his original World League article though? I’m not saying the guy deserves a Pulitzer but it seems to have been correct that the plan was under consideration.

Unless WR were just waiting to wow everyone with the Belgiumwe/Namibiawe ppt.

Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 20:56
National Flag:
GeorgiaGeorgia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby fullbackace » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 01:39

4N wrote:
carbonero wrote:
4N wrote:
carbonero wrote:And 4N, stop quoting Gregor Paul. He is without doubt the biggest hater of emerging nations in rugby media. He just called the expanded TRC a “joke competition”.

He’s the guy who broke the story. Obviously has some good sources and knows what’s happening behind the scenes. Not pretending he is T2 advocate.

Read his columns. He is an unhinged homer. Never broke a story in his whole life. And the original report wasn’t backed by any other major media outlet.


Well he’s Scottish so I think it’s more that he’s writing for his audience. Has anyone refuted anything from his original World League article though? I’m not saying the guy deserves a Pulitzer but it seems to have been correct that the plan was under consideration.

Unless WR were just waiting to wow everyone with the Belgiumwe/Namibiawe ppt.


The deal was definitely not Pichot's proposal, It looked more like 6N counter-offer, but making it look like WR proposal did make WR look woeful. which must've been the intention I guess. And this deal seems to be WR's way of using the uproar of Oceania/Georgia omission by pressuring 6N into giving ground, while leaking the fact that Scotland and Italy are the ones blocking Promotion. I think everything is very easy to deduct, but people get lost in all the cacophony of news and tweets.
Don't Pray For Easy lives, Pray for enough Beer!

Posts: 533
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby carbonero » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 02:16

Everybody refuted that initial report. Your suspicions around the league are totally guaranteed. I just can’t accept that people take this moron as gospel.

User avatar
Posts: 2919
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby 4N » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 02:37

carbonero wrote:Everybody refuted that initial report. Your suspicions around the league are totally guaranteed.


Not following you here. Can you elaborate so I can be sure what you’re saying?

I agree btw, as others have said, that Pichot’s original plan was hijacked.

Posts: 263
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 23:39
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby antlat » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 02:46

give us some details about FIBA's system


Sorry I can't get the images to work.

Go to http://www.fiba.basketball/calendar2017 for details.

FIBA National Team Competitions System & Calendar
2017 marked the beginning of a new era for basketball worldwide, one which features 1,680 top players in 1,250 national teams games and millions of fans all around the globe!
The FIBA Basketball World Cup 2019 Qualifiers, which tipped off in November 2017, establish a clear Road to the FIBA Basketball World Cup China 2019.
National team basketball is front and center during the 6 windows of the Qualifiers taking place over a 15-month period across the four Regions of Africa, Americas, Asia (including Oceania) and Europe.
With regular and competitive home and away games, fans around the world experience national team basketball throughout the year and watch the stars of the game defend their colors on home soil to qualify for FIBA's flaghsip competition!

Key Changes
The FIBA Basketball World Cup moved from 2018 to 2019 and then held every four years (2023, 2027, 2031, etc.) to avoid clashing with other major sporting events
Two-year qualification period for each FIBA Basketball World Cup: 6 windows per qualification period (Nov, Feb, June, Sept, Nov, Feb)
FIBA Basketball World Cup played with 32 teams: 1 host country - China; 5 from Africa; 7 from Americas; 7 from Asia (including Oceania) and 12 from Europe
Qualification for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games through the FIBA Basketball World Cup 2019 and 4 FIBA Olympic Qualifying Tournaments in 2020
Asia and Oceania play together in an Asia Region to ensure competitive games

FIBA Continental Cups 2021 Qualifiers
Starting right after the FIBA Basketball World Cup 2019, all FIBA Continental Cups will follow a four-year cycle (2021, 2025, 2029, etc.). The FIBA Continental Cups 2021 Qualifiers will begin in the 4 Regions and consist of 4 windows. These Qualifiers tip off in November 2019, and then continue in February and November 2020 and February 2021.

After the Continental Cups 2021, the four-year cycle (2021-2025) starts once again with the FIBA Basketball World Cup 2023 Qualifiers beginning in November 2021.

Qualifiers
Over a four-year cycle (2017-2021), national teams will play regular home and away games to qualify for the FIBA Basketball World Cup 2019 and the FIBA Continental Cups 2021.

WORLD CUP 2019 QUALIFIERS
A total of 80 national teams from the four regions of Africa, Americas, Asia (and Oceania) and Europe will play in the FIBA Basketball World Cup 2019 Qualifiers.

Number of teams AFRICA AMERICAS ASIA EUROPE
FIBA Basketball World Cup 2019 Qualifiers 16 16 16 32
FIBA Continental Cups 2021 Pre-Qualifiers All remaining registered teams

Two games per window to be played on a home and away basis in six windows to qualify for the FIBA Basketball World Cup 2019
Each window will be 9 days long, beginning on Monday and finishing on the following Tuesday
Windows dates: 20-28 November 2017, 19-27 February 2018, 25 June-3 July 2018, 30 August-18 September 2018, 26 November-4 December 2018 and 18-28 February 2019
The FIBA Basketball World Cup 2019 will qualify teams directly for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games or through 4 FIBA Olympic Qualifying Tournaments

CONTINENTAL CUPS 2021 QUALIFIERS
The FIBA Continental Cups 2021 Pre-Qualifiers will take place during the same windows as the FIBA Basketball World Cup 2019 Qualifiers, starting in November 2017.
Qualifiers for the FIBA Continental Cups 2021 will begin in Africa, Americas, Asia and Europe regions immediately after the FIBA Basketball World Cup 2019 in China.

Home and away games will be played in four windows to qualify for the FIBA Continental Cups 2021.
Windows dates: 25 November to 3 December 2019, 17-25 February 2020, 23 November to 1 December 2020 and 15-23 February 2021
After the FIBA Continental Cups 2021, the four-year cycle (2021-2025) begins once again with the FIBA Basketball World Cup 2023 Qualifiers starting in November 2021.

Posts: 533
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby carbonero » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 03:09

4N wrote:
carbonero wrote:Everybody refuted that initial report. Your suspicions around the league are totally guaranteed.


Not following you here. Can you elaborate so I can be sure what you’re saying?

I agree btw, as others have said, that Pichot’s original plan was hijacked.

You asked if anyone had refuted his initial report. He reported that the 12 team ring fenced league was a done deal. Everybody denied that was the case.

Then I was trying to be conciliatory. I don't care for this idea either.

User avatar
Posts: 2919
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby 4N » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 04:17

It wasn’t reported that the deal had been signed but that it was imminent.

NZ Herald wrote:International rugby is braced for the biggest change in modern history with plans to create a World League that will see Japan and the USA join the Rugby Championship set to be signed off as early as next month.


The “Belgiumwe” proposal is an early iteration from Sep 2018, you have to think discussions progressed after that, particularly during the LA meeting several weeks ago. Then after the Herald report came out WR announced an emergency meeting with the T1s, Fiji and Japan (Fiji were not invited to the Jan 2019 meeting). If the report had been completely baseless, wouldn’t they have just issued a clear release stating so? It was all worded in a way that leads you to believe it was under consideration. And the Herald is sticking with this in their latest article:

What's undisputed is that senior World Rugby officials met the chairman and chief executive of the International Rugby Players' Association last week and told them that plans were being fast-tracked to sign off on the 12-team format by the middle of the month.

Posts: 533
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby carbonero » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 04:36

The denial seems pretty clear to me:
...it is important to note that some assumptions made in the statement regarding the proposed competition structure are inaccurate and that important matters such as playing load and emerging nation opportunities are at the heart of constructive dialogue on the overall concept.


Was there any report of advances after the LA meeting? Find me another news outlet that backs the Herald claims.

Posts: 5607
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby victorsra » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 05:29

The “Belgiumwe” proposal

It is great to have a rugby world with Los Lelos and Belgiumwe
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 2107
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby sk 88 » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 09:02

Bruce_ma_goose wrote:
Armchair Fan wrote:
Bruce_ma_goose wrote:I'm not sure why Tier 2 & 3 could oppose this. It would be a momentous change.

https://twitter.com/WorldRugby/status/1 ... 15776?s=20

Because Tier 2 teams currently receiving Tier 1 matches may never host them again (Canada), others may find themselves yo-yoing forever, some were promised yearly Tier 1 games in 2017 for 2020 and now see these plans explode, it doesn't solve financial questions since the focus so far has been on boosting revenues for Tier 1... It isn't such a clear choice.


So some people would prefer an annual friendly against Tier1 in the existing status quo closed shop compared to an open system, based on on field performance, where any nation can reach the pinnacle of the sport if their union applies itself?

That is the choice, and I think it is a very straightforward one. This is the first opportunity I can think of to genuinely break the glass ceiling. Once broken it cannot be reinstated.


I respect but disagree with this line of thinking. Effectively that the good bits (opening up) and well worth the bad bits (basically everything else).

For me we need better change than this. Yes opening the game up is better than some aspects of the current situation but this plan involves a lot of aspects that are both bad and unnecessary. The much stricter apartheid between T1 and T2 in the new proposal is not a good thing and is not necessary. We can create better tournaments (about three different versions of better tournaments are on this thread alone) that don't have the "all or nothing" component but retain the open access and widening of the game elements.

User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon, 28 Apr 2014, 23:16
National Flag:
NetherlandsNetherlands

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby Silver Fox » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 09:13

Well, given it a second thought I think the concept could work if they went from divisions of 12 to divisions of 6.

The downside is that the commercial value would be halved as the number of matches would roughly half.
In the published proposal they could sell 36 additional matches (outside 6N and TC) involving the top 12 nations.
Splitting it in 2 divisions would bring this down to 20 to 24.
All the other issues would be addressed however.

So instead of 12 nations playing 11 matches it could be divisions of 6 playing 5 matches.
- If there are no matches from their regional league counting that would mean a max of 5 additional matches to be played in the July and November windows. This could easily be fitted in.
- No need to hamper current structures like the RC.
- All teams would play matches in the band of their strength so no chance for teams being (literally) out of their league and facing 10 mismatches a year.
- No need for additional promotion-relegation matches.
- No need for finals that could mimic an in-between-sort-of-world-championship. 6N and RC don't have them either and don't suffer from it.
- There would be plenty of room for the Bledisloe cup or so-called 'friendlies'. Nations could even decide to give their players an extra week of rest.
- More T2 nations garanteed T1 opposition.
Last edited by Silver Fox on Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 09:20, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 2943
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 09:19

Lets face it, we need to grow the game and the only simple, but effective solution is by finally creating qualification games everybody needs to take part.

Nov 2021:
Europe
3 groups of 4 teams with 2 6N and 2 REC each. Best two teams from each group qualify for the RWC

Americas
ARC with 6 teams (Argentina; USA; Canada, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile)
Two best teams go to the RWC

Africa
4 team Gold Cup (SA, Namibia, Kenya, whoever is the next best then)
Winner and 2nd placed team are at the RWC.

Asia/Oceania
2 groups with 4 teams (NZ, OZ, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Japan, HK, winner Asia/Oceania rest).
Best two teams from each group go to the RWC.

Qualification spots taken: (14/20)




June 2022
Europe
The three 3rd placed teams play a round-robin with the best RET team in the next phase.
=>The best two teams go to the RWC. 3rd placed team to the repechage

Americas
Third placed team plays three teams from a division down (Paraguay, Colombia, Caribbean expat-team) for the repechage spot

Africa
Playoff between 3rd Gold Cup vs. 1st Silver Cup. Winner goes to the repechage

Asia/Oceania
Playoff 3rd placed teams home-and-away.
Winner goes to the RWC, loser to the repechage

Qualification spots taken: (17/20)

November 2022:
Repechage: Semi-finals, finals.
3 go to the RWC. Winner of the otherwise meaningless final gets a home-game in June 2023 against the incumbent RWC champions.

Qualification spots taken: (20/20)


No phase apart from the ARC contains more than 3 matches in each phase. Some big and interesting games in it, but still not complicated. Tier1 nations are only occupied for 3 games if they are not beaten, travelling is minor, still every nation can qualify for the RWC. You don't need to change any existing tournament, but can still grow the game. One could also play a double round-robin, if wished starting June 2011 with everything i.e.
Feel free to point out any mistakes I might have made. Wrote this down in just 5-10 minutes.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

User avatar
Posts: 2919
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby 4N » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 13:29

Some of the issues Japan would face:

However, there was no explanation as to how Japan — situated far north of the equator — would fit into the Rugby Championship, which also features New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina.

Japan Rugby Football Union chairman Noriyuki Sakamoto told Kyodo News recently that the “assumption is Japan will participate.”

However, he admitted that the new league — which is set to start in 2022 — could have serious consequences for Japanese rugby and that until plans become more concrete it would be difficult for the JRFU to make any long-term plans regarding the Top League and other domestic competitions.

Under the proposed plans, Japan would play the 11 other countries once, either home or away, with points accumulated throughout to rank teams on a league table. The top two teams from each conference would then play cross-conference semifinals, followed by a grand final.

This means Japan would play eight test matches, at least four at home, in July and August, a time of year when sweltering temperatures and high humidity levels raise serious concerns for player welfare. The remainder would be played in Europe in November.

As a Northern Hemisphere country, rugby is traditionally played at the highest levels in Japan from August or September to January. So, as it stands, games against the likes of the All Blacks and Springboks would, in essence, be preseason games for the Brave Blossoms.

The JRFU is therefore faced with a number of dilemmas.

Should it move the Top League season to earlier in the year to ensure Japan’s top players are ready for the new international league?

This would cause all sorts of problems given the educational year runs from April to March, meaning the top university recruits would arrive at their new club sides with the season just about over.


https://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/201 ... IJsOqROmEc

User avatar
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby NaBUru38 » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 15:23

French and English clubs are concerned about player welfare. Yeah right...

Posts: 19
Joined: Tue, 27 Jun 2017, 09:37
National Flag:
BelgiumBelgium

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby bolleje » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 15:25

Lets face it, we need to grow the game and the only simple, but effective solution is by finally creating qualification games everybody needs to take part.


Probably not the most popular opinion someone has posted here, but I (strongly) disagree.

There are a couple of "own truths" coming up regularly here, that I think are a bit biased and not really objective... because they are looked upon with Tier2 glasses (and this does not equal "best rugby interest" glasses).

1. "Automatic" qualification. I read a lot of times here that "the automatic qualification" needs to go and is unfair. Outside of the hosts, nobody currently qualifies automatically. The first qualification phase is the previous World Cup in which you have to finish top 3 of your group. It's not New Zealand's fault that they have no problem achieving this... they still qualify on merits. If at the next World Cup South Africa, Italy and Namibia all beat the All Blacks, they will have to qualify (unless the rules change). So claiming that there is automatic qualification for the "big elite rugby countries" is not entirely true. With rugby being a very physical sport, I think the idea of having behemoths like England en Ireland go through qualifications like there exist in football, is just dangerous. Nobody wants to see England smash Norway (or even Belgium). So unless the gaps between those countries narrow quickly, let's not go that route please. Do you really want to see someone like Bastareaud smash through an amateur defence?

2. People are confusing "rugby growth" with "the number of rugby-playing countries". Depending on your definition of growth, growing rugby could also mean getting more revenue, getting more international recognition or simply getting more players and/or fans. You don't necessarily do that by protecting the interest of some "smaller" nations like Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Georgia and Romania. On the contrary, one could argue that the "big markets" are much more important. And in that sense, the proposal of including USA and Japan into the closed Rugby Championship is probably a very good idea for growing the sport. Should economics be the only factor? I don't think so. I think a big charm of rugby is some nations, like Georgia, overachieving compared to other sports. But you can't blame some people to have other interests. If Rugby would become a huge sport in the USA and Japan, I'm pretty sure those smaller countries would follow as well. And they would have a hard time staying competitive against those powerhouses. In that regard, maybe Georgia and the pacific nations should hope that the sport doesn't grow all that much...

My main concern with the World League is ,as some people have suggested , a dilution of the World Cup. I would prefer Europe and the Rest of the World to have less matches against each other instead of more. That way, when the World Cup finally comes it would still have a sense of surprise and uniqueness. If we compare to football again, Germany and France don't play Brazil and Argentina every year which makes the anticipation when they finally meet that much bigger.

Posts: 442
Joined: Sun, 19 Feb 2017, 18:10
National Flag:
GeorgiaGeorgia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby BigG » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 15:59

NaBUru38 wrote:French and English clubs are concerned about player welfare. Yeah right...


Now t1 teams play 12 games per year. Within the League framework they gonna have 11,12 (if semifinalist) or 13 (if finalist) games.

The President of French national league already expressed his big concern about two extra games. The League should take into account the interests not only players, but national tournaments as well. If semi-finals are cancelled teams play 11 and two finalists 12 games. For me it makes sense.

User avatar
Posts: 2919
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby 4N » Fri, 08 Mar 2019, 16:12

bolleje wrote:
Lets face it, we need to grow the game and the only simple, but effective solution is by finally creating qualification games everybody needs to take part.


Probably not the most popular opinion someone has posted here, but I (strongly) disagree.

There are a couple of "own truths" coming up regularly here, that I think are a bit biased and not really objective... because they are looked upon with Tier2 glasses (and this does not equal "best rugby interest" glasses).

1. "Automatic" qualification. I read a lot of times here that "the automatic qualification" needs to go and is unfair. Outside of the hosts, nobody currently qualifies automatically. The first qualification phase is the previous World Cup in which you have to finish top 3 of your group. It's not New Zealand's fault that they have no problem achieving this... they still qualify on merits. If at the next World Cup South Africa, Italy and Namibia all beat the All Blacks, they will have to qualify (unless the rules change). So claiming that there is automatic qualification for the "big elite rugby countries" is not entirely true. With rugby being a very physical sport, I think the idea of having behemoths like England en Ireland go through qualifications like there exist in football, is just dangerous. Nobody wants to see England smash Norway (or even Belgium). So unless the gaps between those countries narrow quickly, let's not go that route please. Do you really want to see someone like Bastareaud smash through an amateur defence?

2. People are confusing "rugby growth" with "the number of rugby-playing countries". Depending on your definition of growth, growing rugby could also mean getting more revenue, getting more international recognition or simply getting more players and/or fans. You don't necessarily do that by protecting the interest of some "smaller" nations like Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Georgia and Romania. On the contrary, one could argue that the "big markets" are much more important. And in that sense, the proposal of including USA and Japan into the closed Rugby Championship is probably a very good idea for growing the sport. Should economics be the only factor? I don't think so. I think a big charm of rugby is some nations, like Georgia, overachieving compared to other sports. But you can't blame some people to have other interests. If Rugby would become a huge sport in the USA and Japan, I'm pretty sure those smaller countries would follow as well. And they would have a hard time staying competitive against those powerhouses. In that regard, maybe Georgia and the pacific nations should hope that the sport doesn't grow all that much...

My main concern with the World League is ,as some people have suggested , a dilution of the World Cup. I would prefer Europe and the Rest of the World to have less matches against each other instead of more. That way, when the World Cup finally comes it would still have a sense of surprise and uniqueness. If we compare to football again, Germany and France don't play Brazil and Argentina every year which makes the anticipation when they finally meet that much bigger.


There’s a lot to agree with here. The only thing I would say is that larger markets don’t always dominate, or at least small countries with strong traditions in a sport can thrive. Uruguayan soccer, Puerto Rican baseball, Finnish hockey, Lithuanian basketball, Jamaican athletics etc. In that sense I don’t think Georgia (or NZ or Wales or Fiji) have a lot to worry about if they continue to capture national attention and run high quality developmental programs.

Posts: 1548
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby Working Class Rugger » Sat, 09 Mar 2019, 02:53

NaBUru38 wrote:French and English clubs are concerned about player welfare. Yeah right...


Lol. Yeah, if they really were concerned they'd do something about their own schedules. Complete joke.

Posts: 5607
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby victorsra » Sat, 09 Mar 2019, 03:00

There’s a lot to agree with here. The only thing I would say is that larger markets don’t always dominate, or at least small countries with strong traditions in a sport can thrive. Uruguayan soccer, Puerto Rican baseball, Finnish hockey, Lithuanian basketball, Jamaican athletics etc. In that sense I don’t think Georgia (or NZ or Wales or Fiji) have a lot to worry about if they continue to capture national attention and run high quality developmental programs.


Yep, that's a big point. If rugby is your number 1 sport, you'll be in front of big countries where rugby struggle to get national attention.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests