Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Posts: 136
Joined: Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 20:14

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Pichulonko » Fri, 25 Dec 2020, 08:19

If Victor wants a change in the format, then Canada needs to be ousted in the SAR2 vs RAN2 matchup.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Fri, 25 Dec 2020, 14:55

In 2019 North and South had agreed the ARC would be the qualy. I don't want to "change". It was SAR that changed after Pichot's defeat.

AFAIK it is a lie Canada did not want the ARC. Unless someone shows anything from Rugby Canada, it is false information. Who decided against ARC was only SAR. It is not because Canada voted against Pichot that they were against ARC. False conclusion. And clearly this is a poisonous lie, because people started believing it.

Posts: 2156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 25 Dec 2020, 22:59

Hernan14 wrote:
Clearly you have to understand that there are 2 parts, one the SAR, another RAN, one part of the RAN (USA) has no problem playing anyway, the other does NOT.

It is not a question of what we believe the best, if Canada doesn't want it, doesn't want it, period ... and that is when everything else comes up, basically fighting politically so that, without ARC, Canada doesn't obtain what they wanted with the rupture.


Ok dude, I don't know who's telling you anything. Canada voting for Beaumont was mutually exclusive from the ARC. In fact Canada, much like the US, loves what the ARC has contributed to them. They may have not performed well in the competition, but it has given them consistent Test competition when they didn't have it. Losing it sucks for their own development.

victorsra wrote:In 2019 North and South had agreed the ARC would be the qualy. I don't want to "change". It was SAR that changed after Pichot's defeat.

AFAIK it is a lie Canada did not want the ARC. Unless someone shows anything from Rugby Canada, it is false information. Who decided against ARC was only SAR. It is not because Canada voted against Pichot that they were against ARC. False conclusion. And clearly this is a poisonous lie, because people started believing it.


It is a lie. Canada may have performed poorly, but their vote did not take into account what the ARC has done for them. Which was a lot as I said above. I can also for a fact say that RAN splitting it's vote had little to do with Canada and more to do with the rest of the Commonwealth nations in RAN. The union ties run pretty deep.

Did either of those votes actually make sense if you weighed the ARC and ARCh in the balance, no. But they weren't thinking about it. Two things can always be true at the same time.

However, I can tell you that the loss of both Canada and the US will have a worse effect on SAR's top teams because they will lose the quality competition of the US and Canada.

Posts: 630
Joined: Sun, 06 Dec 2015, 06:42
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby snapper37 » Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 00:06

TheStroBro wrote:
Hernan14 wrote:
Clearly you have to understand that there are 2 parts, one the SAR, another RAN, one part of the RAN (USA) has no problem playing anyway, the other does NOT.

It is not a question of what we believe the best, if Canada doesn't want it, doesn't want it, period ... and that is when everything else comes up, basically fighting politically so that, without ARC, Canada doesn't obtain what they wanted with the rupture.


Ok dude, I don't know who's telling you anything. Canada voting for Beaumont was mutually exclusive from the ARC. In fact Canada, much like the US, loves what the ARC has contributed to them. They may have not performed well in the competition, but it has given them consistent Test competition when they didn't have it. Losing it sucks for their own development.

victorsra wrote:In 2019 North and South had agreed the ARC would be the qualy. I don't want to "change". It was SAR that changed after Pichot's defeat.

AFAIK it is a lie Canada did not want the ARC. Unless someone shows anything from Rugby Canada, it is false information. Who decided against ARC was only SAR. It is not because Canada voted against Pichot that they were against ARC. False conclusion. And clearly this is a poisonous lie, because people started believing it.


It is a lie. Canada may have performed poorly, but their vote did not take into account what the ARC has done for them. Which was a lot as I said above. I can also for a fact say that RAN splitting it's vote had little to do with Canada and more to do with the rest of the Commonwealth nations in RAN. The union ties run pretty deep.

Did either of those votes actually make sense if you weighed the ARC and ARCh in the balance, no. But they weren't thinking about it. Two things can always be true at the same time.

However, I can tell you that the loss of both Canada and the US will have a worse effect on SAR's top teams because they will lose the quality competition of the US and Canada.



Canada gained nothing from the ARC, we never took it seriously (which i wished we had) as we only ever sent has beens and nobody's. Canada needs to learn to take all competitions seriously, Losses to the likes of Brazil, Spain and Russia (at home) over the last few years is unacceptable. And is one of the reasons why we have been the shits over the last decade. The other is too many welsh dragons running the show, especially the fat one.

Posts: 2156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby TheStroBro » Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 01:54

snapper37 wrote:
Canada gained nothing from the ARC, we never took it seriously (which i wished we had) as we only ever sent has beens and nobody's. Canada needs to learn to take all competitions seriously, Losses to the likes of Brazil, Spain and Russia (at home) over the last few years is unacceptable. And is one of the reasons why we have been the shits over the last decade. The other is too many welsh dragons running the show, especially the fat one.


Both Anscombe and Jones have taken the tournament quite seriously. Not sure why you have an assumption that your union didn't take it seriously. Their performance overall is just the reality of where you are competitively.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 03:46

TheStroBro wrote:
Hernan14 wrote:
Clearly you have to understand that there are 2 parts, one the SAR, another RAN, one part of the RAN (USA) has no problem playing anyway, the other does NOT.

It is not a question of what we believe the best, if Canada doesn't want it, doesn't want it, period ... and that is when everything else comes up, basically fighting politically so that, without ARC, Canada doesn't obtain what they wanted with the rupture.


Ok dude, I don't know who's telling you anything. Canada voting for Beaumont was mutually exclusive from the ARC. In fact Canada, much like the US, loves what the ARC has contributed to them. They may have not performed well in the competition, but it has given them consistent Test competition when they didn't have it. Losing it sucks for their own development.

victorsra wrote:In 2019 North and South had agreed the ARC would be the qualy. I don't want to "change". It was SAR that changed after Pichot's defeat.

AFAIK it is a lie Canada did not want the ARC. Unless someone shows anything from Rugby Canada, it is false information. Who decided against ARC was only SAR. It is not because Canada voted against Pichot that they were against ARC. False conclusion. And clearly this is a poisonous lie, because people started believing it.


It is a lie. Canada may have performed poorly, but their vote did not take into account what the ARC has done for them. Which was a lot as I said above. I can also for a fact say that RAN splitting it's vote had little to do with Canada and more to do with the rest of the Commonwealth nations in RAN. The union ties run pretty deep.

Did either of those votes actually make sense if you weighed the ARC and ARCh in the balance, no. But they weren't thinking about it. Two things can always be true at the same time.

However, I can tell you that the loss of both Canada and the US will have a worse effect on SAR's top teams because they will lose the quality competition of the US and Canada.


Brazil and Chile are the biggest losers of the end of ARC, as much as Chileans will claim they weren't serious about it, which is not the total truth. It is true Chile was more focused on sevens than 15s, which explain why they performed so poorly. However, the fact is Chile wasn't able to afford a proper HP system for everything and Brazil was ahead of Chile in such matter.

Now, things clearly are changing, which means it looks like Chile will probably reclaim its place ahead of Brazil, as now Brazil doesn't look to have a better HP system anymore. Chile won't realise they would benefit a lot from USA and Canada opposition, as now the Condores have a better HP system. They would only see they are losing a lot without the ARC if Brazil beats them in 2021. ATM, I believe Chile will beat Brazil next year, which means Brazil will be the biggest loser. And, as far as I can see, CBRu doesn't care much, because they are entering difficult times anyway. There you are the tragedy.

I hope Canada and USA are able to restart the Pacific Nations Cup, because at least some T2s can leave this nightmare of divorce in a better situation. They don't need South America if they manage to reallign with Japan and PIs. Meanwhile, South America's unjustifiable arrogance will lead us to... well... I don't know where. Some place with Jaguares dead and no ties with North America or Spain/Portugal :thumbup:

Posts: 39
Joined: Fri, 31 Aug 2018, 16:26
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby rugby-veterinarian » Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 08:16

I hope Canada and USA are able to restart the Pacific Nations Cup, because at least some T2s can leave this nightmare of divorce in a better situation.

I hope for the same thing, but instead of during the mid year tests window play in August and September. This way all the teams can play each other. Plus you still have July and November for the qualifying matches.

For USA and Canada that would be a solid set of fixtures. In July they can host a T1 nation then play each other during RWC qualifying years and in non qualifying years host other T2 nations. Then starting in August the PNC another 5 games. Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, and each other. Come November play RWC qualifying matches if needed and or tour Europe. Also what might be a good idea is to rotate the PNC to lessen travel, so for example one year have Japan host all the matches, then the next year have the Pacific islands host, and finally North America and just continue the rotation.

Posts: 211
Joined: Mon, 10 Nov 2014, 06:54
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Hernan14 » Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 15:08

victorsra wrote:In 2019 North and South had agreed the ARC would be the qualy. I don't want to "change". It was SAR that changed after Pichot's defeat.

AFAIK it is a lie Canada did not want the ARC. Unless someone shows anything from Rugby Canada, it is false information. Who decided against ARC was only SAR. It is not because Canada voted against Pichot that they were against ARC. False conclusion. And clearly this is a poisonous lie, because people started believing it.


Please read carefully what I wrote before: "the conversation continued until the relationship was broken, the vote of Canada was the end point, not the beginning of the break" ... the ARC ended up being a political victim, no one has doubts of this, but it was not agreed that the ARC was the classification, as I said before, they changed positions (both sides), first using the ARC with one classified per side (RAN / SAR), and achieving one more spot in the global repechage, then it was changing towards 2 and 1, because WR don't agreed with the 2 direct/2 repechage, the conversations continued and there was no agreement ... the vote was a taking of position and there the relationship and therefore the ARC broke. It's not about winners or losers, everyone loses...the ARC not was the problem, the problem was the quotas.

This current situation is a product of the above, but it is the same, now doesn't matter if there is ARC or not, the fight still going for the quotas.

Posts: 211
Joined: Mon, 10 Nov 2014, 06:54
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Hernan14 » Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 15:22

TheStroBro wrote:
Hernan14 wrote:
Clearly you have to understand that there are 2 parts, one the SAR, another RAN, one part of the RAN (USA) has no problem playing anyway, the other does NOT.

It is not a question of what we believe the best, if Canada doesn't want it, doesn't want it, period ... and that is when everything else comes up, basically fighting politically so that, without ARC, Canada doesn't obtain what they wanted with the rupture.


Ok dude, I don't know who's telling you anything. Canada voting for Beaumont was mutually exclusive from the ARC. In fact Canada, much like the US, loves what the ARC has contributed to them. They may have not performed well in the competition, but it has given them consistent Test competition when they didn't have it. Losing it sucks for their own development.

victorsra wrote:In 2019 North and South had agreed the ARC would be the qualy. I don't want to "change". It was SAR that changed after Pichot's defeat.

AFAIK it is a lie Canada did not want the ARC. Unless someone shows anything from Rugby Canada, it is false information. Who decided against ARC was only SAR. It is not because Canada voted against Pichot that they were against ARC. False conclusion. And clearly this is a poisonous lie, because people started believing it.


It is a lie. Canada may have performed poorly, but their vote did not take into account what the ARC has done for them. Which was a lot as I said above. I can also for a fact say that RAN splitting it's vote had little to do with Canada and more to do with the rest of the Commonwealth nations in RAN. The union ties run pretty deep.

Did either of those votes actually make sense if you weighed the ARC and ARCh in the balance, no. But they weren't thinking about it. Two things can always be true at the same time.

However, I can tell you that the loss of both Canada and the US will have a worse effect on SAR's top teams because they will lose the quality competition of the US and Canada.


I share what you say, unfortunately in this forum everything is taken as a position or defense, but as you say, two things can always be true at the same time.

I don't defend SAR or criticize Canada, each of them defends their positions and the fight between them was for quotas, but not for the ARC. That is what several here don't understand, the loss of the ARC is a consequence of another fight, it is not that the SAR one day only decided not to play the ARC anymore, there was no agreement regarding the classification (but NOT which format to use, but the quotas for RAN/SAR) and with the vote, the relationship was broken. So, now, SAR just try to get the same that want before (the same but not using the ARC as format...because, all already now why)

As you say, SAR loses more than USA/Canada

If it is for me, I have repeated it countless times here, all the teams except the host and the champion must qualify for the World Cup, all of them, then, it is the decision and risk of each Union what players they use. And no divisions with yearly relegations and promotions (that is to continental competitions), but as they do in other sports, they all play, yes, preliminary phases, which seems logical to me.

Posts: 2156
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby TheStroBro » Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 18:47

Hernan14 wrote:
I share what you say, unfortunately in this forum everything is taken as a position or defense, but as you say, two things can always be true at the same time.

I don't defend SAR or criticize Canada, each of them defends their positions and the fight between them was for quotas, but not for the ARC. That is what several here don't understand, the loss of the ARC is a consequence of another fight, it is not that the SAR one day only decided not to play the ARC anymore, there was no agreement regarding the classification (but NOT which format to use, but the quotas for RAN/SAR) and with the vote, the relationship was broken. So, now, SAR just try to get the same that want before (the same but not using the ARC as format...because, all already now why)

As you say, SAR loses more than USA/Canada

If it is for me, I have repeated it countless times here, all the teams except the host and the champion must qualify for the World Cup, all of them, then, it is the decision and risk of each Union what players they use. And no divisions with yearly relegations and promotions (that is to continental competitions), but as they do in other sports, they all play, yes, preliminary phases, which seems logical to me.


This would change the process significantly, which I would be all for. It gives a lot more minnows more valuable test matches to commercialize. The 12 auto-qualifiers is awful for this sport. If we went to the Top 3+Host as auto-qualifiers first it would make a massive difference. I'm not sure what the deal is for the Tier 1s to keep the current process other than to protect pay outs.

Posts: 136
Joined: Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 20:14

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Pichulonko » Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 20:36

Imagine Namibia not getting an automatic spot as Africa 1 every cycle! That would certainly shake things up for starters.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 22:02

Hernan14 wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:
Hernan14 wrote:
Clearly you have to understand that there are 2 parts, one the SAR, another RAN, one part of the RAN (USA) has no problem playing anyway, the other does NOT.

It is not a question of what we believe the best, if Canada doesn't want it, doesn't want it, period ... and that is when everything else comes up, basically fighting politically so that, without ARC, Canada doesn't obtain what they wanted with the rupture.


Ok dude, I don't know who's telling you anything. Canada voting for Beaumont was mutually exclusive from the ARC. In fact Canada, much like the US, loves what the ARC has contributed to them. They may have not performed well in the competition, but it has given them consistent Test competition when they didn't have it. Losing it sucks for their own development.

victorsra wrote:In 2019 North and South had agreed the ARC would be the qualy. I don't want to "change". It was SAR that changed after Pichot's defeat.

AFAIK it is a lie Canada did not want the ARC. Unless someone shows anything from Rugby Canada, it is false information. Who decided against ARC was only SAR. It is not because Canada voted against Pichot that they were against ARC. False conclusion. And clearly this is a poisonous lie, because people started believing it.


It is a lie. Canada may have performed poorly, but their vote did not take into account what the ARC has done for them. Which was a lot as I said above. I can also for a fact say that RAN splitting it's vote had little to do with Canada and more to do with the rest of the Commonwealth nations in RAN. The union ties run pretty deep.

Did either of those votes actually make sense if you weighed the ARC and ARCh in the balance, no. But they weren't thinking about it. Two things can always be true at the same time.

However, I can tell you that the loss of both Canada and the US will have a worse effect on SAR's top teams because they will lose the quality competition of the US and Canada.


I share what you say, unfortunately in this forum everything is taken as a position or defense, but as you say, two things can always be true at the same time.

I don't defend SAR or criticize Canada, each of them defends their positions and the fight between them was for quotas, but not for the ARC. That is what several here don't understand, the loss of the ARC is a consequence of another fight, it is not that the SAR one day only decided not to play the ARC anymore, there was no agreement regarding the classification (but NOT which format to use, but the quotas for RAN/SAR) and with the vote, the relationship was broken. So, now, SAR just try to get the same that want before (the same but not using the ARC as format...because, all already now why)

As you say, SAR loses more than USA/Canada

If it is for me, I have repeated it countless times here, all the teams except the host and the champion must qualify for the World Cup, all of them, then, it is the decision and risk of each Union what players they use. And no divisions with yearly relegations and promotions (that is to continental competitions), but as they do in other sports, they all play, yes, preliminary phases, which seems logical to me.


Yes, I do understand there are two different disputes: one over ARC, one over RWC Qualy. But sorry, SAR did decide that. You can trace this by Piñeyrua's declarations through time. In 2019 , World Rugby published the 2020 calendar and anounced the introduction of promotion/relegation (i posted the link above).

Just after Canada's "betrayal" by April/May 2020 they started declaring the partnership with the North was over and ARC was under doubt. This was very clear in all their messages.

It is true what you say, that ARC was never officialy anounced as RWC Qualy, but I can tell you for sure everybody was counting on this. I can tell you knowing about Brazil, but, as you know, this is the souce closest to Piñeyrua (Sudamerica Rugby) and the Uruguayan Rugby Union and it was clear Uruguay was counting on this https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/as ... 9121810012

If there was opposition from North America, I'd like evidence. If there is, ok, we can blame North America about the Qualy, but not about the end of ARC. North American posters could help us with this. But as you said, 2 different things, and SAR indeed "one day decided against ARC" just after the election. Remember: https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/se ... 2068192028

Imagine Namibia not getting an automatic spot as Africa 1 every cycle! That would certainly shake things up for starters.

Africa, the only other continent where in the RWC Qualy one team has home advantage over the other direct challengers. Namibia always hosts but never visits Kenya in the RWC Qualy. Not sure if you know that. Do you see why it is a disgrace such sort of formula?

Posts: 297
Joined: Wed, 16 Apr 2014, 23:39
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby antlat » Sat, 26 Dec 2020, 22:48

I always dream that they would one day go back to the 1999 Rugby World Cup Qualification System. Only Wales as hosts and the top 3 of RWC1995 South Africa, New Zealand and France automatically qualified.

The qualifiers were Namibia (Africa 1), Argentina (Americas 1), Canada (Americas 2), United States America (Americas 3), Japan (Asia 1), Ireland (Europe 1), England (Europe 2), Scotland (Europe 3), Romania (Europe 4), Italy (Europe 5), Spain (Europe 6), Australia (Oceania 1), Fiji (Oceania 2) and Samoa (Oceania 3)

Tonga (Oceania 4) and Uruguay (Americas 4) qualified as Repechage 1 and Repechage 2 respectively. Other nations in repechage were Morocco (Africa 2), South Korea (Asia 2), Portugal, Netherlands and Georgia from Europe. (Europe 7, 8 and 9)

Posts: 211
Joined: Mon, 10 Nov 2014, 06:54
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Hernan14 » Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 00:56

victorsra wrote:
Hernan14 wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:
Hernan14 wrote:
Clearly you have to understand that there are 2 parts, one the SAR, another RAN, one part of the RAN (USA) has no problem playing anyway, the other does NOT.

It is not a question of what we believe the best, if Canada doesn't want it, doesn't want it, period ... and that is when everything else comes up, basically fighting politically so that, without ARC, Canada doesn't obtain what they wanted with the rupture.


Ok dude, I don't know who's telling you anything. Canada voting for Beaumont was mutually exclusive from the ARC. In fact Canada, much like the US, loves what the ARC has contributed to them. They may have not performed well in the competition, but it has given them consistent Test competition when they didn't have it. Losing it sucks for their own development.

victorsra wrote:In 2019 North and South had agreed the ARC would be the qualy. I don't want to "change". It was SAR that changed after Pichot's defeat.

AFAIK it is a lie Canada did not want the ARC. Unless someone shows anything from Rugby Canada, it is false information. Who decided against ARC was only SAR. It is not because Canada voted against Pichot that they were against ARC. False conclusion. And clearly this is a poisonous lie, because people started believing it.


It is a lie. Canada may have performed poorly, but their vote did not take into account what the ARC has done for them. Which was a lot as I said above. I can also for a fact say that RAN splitting it's vote had little to do with Canada and more to do with the rest of the Commonwealth nations in RAN. The union ties run pretty deep.

Did either of those votes actually make sense if you weighed the ARC and ARCh in the balance, no. But they weren't thinking about it. Two things can always be true at the same time.

However, I can tell you that the loss of both Canada and the US will have a worse effect on SAR's top teams because they will lose the quality competition of the US and Canada.


I share what you say, unfortunately in this forum everything is taken as a position or defense, but as you say, two things can always be true at the same time.

I don't defend SAR or criticize Canada, each of them defends their positions and the fight between them was for quotas, but not for the ARC. That is what several here don't understand, the loss of the ARC is a consequence of another fight, it is not that the SAR one day only decided not to play the ARC anymore, there was no agreement regarding the classification (but NOT which format to use, but the quotas for RAN/SAR) and with the vote, the relationship was broken. So, now, SAR just try to get the same that want before (the same but not using the ARC as format...because, all already now why)

As you say, SAR loses more than USA/Canada

If it is for me, I have repeated it countless times here, all the teams except the host and the champion must qualify for the World Cup, all of them, then, it is the decision and risk of each Union what players they use. And no divisions with yearly relegations and promotions (that is to continental competitions), but as they do in other sports, they all play, yes, preliminary phases, which seems logical to me.


Yes, I do understand there are two different disputes: one over ARC, one over RWC Qualy. But sorry, SAR did decide that. You can trace this by Piñeyrua's declarations through time. In 2019 , World Rugby published the 2020 calendar and anounced the introduction of promotion/relegation (i posted the link above).

Just after Canada's "betrayal" by April/May 2020 they started declaring the partnership with the North was over and ARC was under doubt. This was very clear in all their messages.

It is true what you say, that ARC was never officialy anounced as RWC Qualy, but I can tell you for sure everybody was counting on this. I can tell you knowing about Brazil, but, as you know, this is the souce closest to Piñeyrua (Sudamerica Rugby) and the Uruguayan Rugby Union and it was clear Uruguay was counting on this https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/as ... 9121810012

If there was opposition from North America, I'd like evidence. If there is, ok, we can blame North America about the Qualy, but not about the end of ARC. North American posters could help us with this. But as you said, 2 different things, and SAR indeed "one day decided against ARC" just after the election. Remember: https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/se ... 2068192028

Imagine Namibia not getting an automatic spot as Africa 1 every cycle! That would certainly shake things up for starters.

Africa, the only other continent where in the RWC Qualy one team has home advantage over the other direct challengers. Namibia always hosts but never visits Kenya in the RWC Qualy. Not sure if you know that. Do you see why it is a disgrace such sort of formula?


Yes Victor, they are two different disputed, but intertwined, the quotas and the ARC (victim of the above).

When I say in "it is not that the SAR one day only decided not to play the ARC anymore", I mean that it was because of the negotiations regarding quotas and the final vote of Canada, which basically made the Canadian position on WR, all before were words and conversations, the vote was a fact, it didn't change the result of the votation but it was a statement of position on certain issues, including the importance of the ARC, because the ARC was not only important for the development of the teams, but for politically in front WR to strengthen the region and therefore the search for more spots to the RWC (direct or repechage).

Clearly, without the division of the RAN votes, the ARC would have continued and would be the qualy, but it was a block looking for 4 places (2/2) as I said before, once that block was destroyed, why SAR should stop looking for a way (although not so direct) to try to get two teams from the region having a chance to qualify? Although they are minimal and perhaps doesn't happen.

Or you believe that the position of SAR need to mantain in USA/Canada playing to be Americas 1, and the losser playing to be the Americas 2 against the winner of SAR?

Posts: 211
Joined: Mon, 10 Nov 2014, 06:54
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Hernan14 » Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 01:11

TheStroBro wrote:
Hernan14 wrote:
I share what you say, unfortunately in this forum everything is taken as a position or defense, but as you say, two things can always be true at the same time.

I don't defend SAR or criticize Canada, each of them defends their positions and the fight between them was for quotas, but not for the ARC. That is what several here don't understand, the loss of the ARC is a consequence of another fight, it is not that the SAR one day only decided not to play the ARC anymore, there was no agreement regarding the classification (but NOT which format to use, but the quotas for RAN/SAR) and with the vote, the relationship was broken. So, now, SAR just try to get the same that want before (the same but not using the ARC as format...because, all already now why)

As you say, SAR loses more than USA/Canada

If it is for me, I have repeated it countless times here, all the teams except the host and the champion must qualify for the World Cup, all of them, then, it is the decision and risk of each Union what players they use. And no divisions with yearly relegations and promotions (that is to continental competitions), but as they do in other sports, they all play, yes, preliminary phases, which seems logical to me.


This would change the process significantly, which I would be all for. It gives a lot more minnows more valuable test matches to commercialize. The 12 auto-qualifiers is awful for this sport. If we went to the Top 3+Host as auto-qualifiers first it would make a massive difference. I'm not sure what the deal is for the Tier 1s to keep the current process other than to protect pay outs.


Exactly, that's why I usually put examples from other sports, the RAN/SAR division is similar to basketball, but the USA doesn't stop participating, and if play against Bahamas, they play anyway, with players who are far from being the Dream Team, but play. When played against Argentina, many people go to that game, even knowing that neither of them will use their best players (we are not far close in level, but also don't use the best players in the qualifiers to the WC or to the AmeriCup), but the people know that the rival's level deserves to go (sorry, but it is not the same as playing Argentina vs Paraguay, always talking about basketball). Wouldn't it be disrespectful for the USA to propose to FIBA directly not to play with anyone and to qualify directly ??? Well, they don't do it and just use other players.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 01:48

Hernan14 wrote:
victorsra wrote:
Hernan14 wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:
Hernan14 wrote:


Clearly, without the division of the RAN votes, the ARC would have continued and would be the qualy, but it was a block looking for 4 places (2/2) as I said before, once that block was destroyed, why SAR should stop looking for a way (although not so direct) to try to get two teams from the region having a chance to qualify? Although they are minimal and perhaps doesn't happen.

Or you believe that the position of SAR need to mantain in USA/Canada playing to be Americas 1, and the losser playing to be the Americas 2 against the winner of SAR?


I don't know why you are asking this. I obviously defend that both Americas 1 and 2 must be open to North and South Americans equaly. But I won't celebrate this new system as a political victory, because it still punishes one South American, that won't play the most important phase of the Qualy. It punishes South Americans, not North Americans, btw (ok, Mexico had some hope of promotion, but their hopes are for 2027/2031). That's true until 2019 only 1 South American played the final phase and now there will be 2, but the whole point about building the ARC since 2016 was exactly to have more countries able to play for a spot in the RWC, with a proper competition for it. And the SLAR project was born in the middle of this.

That's pretty much why I called it Pyrrhic victory. A small win that came with a high price.

Posts: 1815
Joined: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 17:09
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Tobar » Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 17:08

victorsra wrote:Uruguay wouldn't have Europe-based players in August. However, July also risks MLR-based players, as MLR only ends in August. Not sure what will happen.


RWC Qualifiers should count as a window and the clubs should allow them to play. If there was ever a game to fight for your players, this would be it.

Posts: 4753
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Armchair Fan » Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 17:13

RWC qualifiers do count as a window IIRC. A different thing is whatever clubs want to do.

Posts: 1815
Joined: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 17:09
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Tobar » Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 17:17

rugby-veterinarian wrote:
I hope Canada and USA are able to restart the Pacific Nations Cup, because at least some T2s can leave this nightmare of divorce in a better situation.

I hope for the same thing, but instead of during the mid year tests window play in August and September. This way all the teams can play each other. Plus you still have July and November for the qualifying matches.

For USA and Canada that would be a solid set of fixtures. In July they can host a T1 nation then play each other during RWC qualifying years and in non qualifying years host other T2 nations. Then starting in August the PNC another 5 games. Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, and each other. Come November play RWC qualifying matches if needed and or tour Europe. Also what might be a good idea is to rotate the PNC to lessen travel, so for example one year have Japan host all the matches, then the next year have the Pacific islands host, and finally North America and just continue the rotation.


USA and Canada switched to the Southern Hemisphere schedules so they should be able to play the PIs/Japan during any window. Unless you’re specifically referring to player availability which is a different story.

Posts: 1815
Joined: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 17:09
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Tobar » Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 17:33

antlat wrote:I always dream that they would one day go back to the 1999 Rugby World Cup Qualification System. Only Wales as hosts and the top 3 of RWC1995 South Africa, New Zealand and France automatically qualified.

The qualifiers were Namibia (Africa 1), Argentina (Americas 1), Canada (Americas 2), United States America (Americas 3), Japan (Asia 1), Ireland (Europe 1), England (Europe 2), Scotland (Europe 3), Romania (Europe 4), Italy (Europe 5), Spain (Europe 6), Australia (Oceania 1), Fiji (Oceania 2) and Samoa (Oceania 3)

Tonga (Oceania 4) and Uruguay (Americas 4) qualified as Repechage 1 and Repechage 2 respectively. Other nations in repechage were Morocco (Africa 2), South Korea (Asia 2), Portugal, Netherlands and Georgia from Europe. (Europe 7, 8 and 9)



Agreed, it would be so much better for the sport and I think everyone here agrees.

The biggest complaints I hear from Tier 1 fans are either “what’s the point, the minnows will just be thrashed anyway!” or “Can you imagine a World Cup without X team? I don’t want to see that!”

However the statements contradict each other. Either every Tier 1 will be able to qualify without issue or there will be upsets. You can’t have both. If every team thrashes the minnows then at least we know they deserved to make it and that Tier 2 countries got quality test matches outside of a RWC. And if a team doesn’t qualify then they don’t deserve to be there because they aren’t good enough. I don’t care if a RWC would feel worse without Scotland or Italy or whoever - if they don’t qualify then that’s because they are worse than 24+ teams.

Posts: 8627
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby victorsra » Sun, 27 Dec 2020, 20:50

It is indeed impossible to see T1s out of the RWC, but something like a simple playoff woudn't kill them.

It would be cool if 32 teams could be involved in a RWC Qualy main phase, qualifying 24 for the RWC. For exemple, during the 2025 B&I Lions window. Of course, in 2025, Home Nations and the Southern nation that faces them (I guess Australia) would have nothing nothing to fear about missing Lions Tour players. The same way, a team like South Africa could simply field a development squad and have other matches at the same moment if the want.

Exemple:
A: FRA, ITA, GEO, BEL
B: ENG, SCO, RUS, POR
C: IRE, WAL, SPA, ROM
D: NZL, JAP, TON, HKG
E: AUS, FIJ, SAM, KOR
F: SAF, NAM, KEN, ZIM
G: ARG, CAN, CHL, COL
H: USA, URU, BRA, PAR

Best 2 of each group = RWC.

Playoffs in 2026:

In July, 4ths vs 8 teams from Regional Qualifiers, keeping regionalization. Exemple:

BEL vs RET1 - NED
POR vs RET2 - SWI
ROM vs RET3 - GER
HKG vs Oceania 1 - PNG
KOR vs Asia 1 - MAY
ZIM vs Africa 1 - UGA
COL vs North America 1 - BER
PAR vs South America 1- PER

In November, 3rds vs July winners, by Ranking - 8 spots in the RWC. Exemple:
GEO vs ZIM
RUS vs KOR
SPA vs BEL
TON vs PAR
SAM vs COL
KEN vs ROM
CHL vs HKG
BRA vs POR

This model would have many thrashing results, like Samoa vs Colombia, indeed. But, in the Qualy it is ok to happen (it already happens, like Samoa/Tonga vs Oceania Cup champions, PNG/TAH/COOK....). It is part of a development path. Nobody will care if this happens in a Qualy, provided player welfare is not at risk. Teams like Paraguay and Colombia will be professional, the bigger question lies over Korea, Kenya, Zimbabwe.... the injury concern is always related to amateurs vs pros, not pros vs pros.


I'd love the model above, but it is unlikely to happen.

A conservative model could simply have TRC and 6N serving as qualy, with like one or two bottom teams of each having to face a Qualy playoff. Let's say Italy vs REC 2, Wales vs REC 3. Pumas vs ARC 3. Australia vs Oceania 3. Something like this would be an improvement.

With the draw only in 2026, all pots would be determined by the Ranking anyway.

Posts: 2806
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 09:18
Location: Bucharest
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby amz » Mon, 04 Jan 2021, 13:18

Spain started its preparatior for RWC 2023 qualifiers

As we can see, the refs are playing again a major role ;)

https://www.revista22.es/2021/01/mele-g ... u-qTeJDGk4

That said, it should be noted that the arbitration possibly did not look at the two teams with the same eyes. In the second game we were called 19 punitive shots and Uruguay 6. Many of them were committed, but it is true that the criteria were not the same for both teams.

Still, it is true that we committed many more blows than we should have. At times, in the face of impotence and seeing ourselves sometimes overwhelmed by Uruguay, the emotional reaction of the players was that indiscipline which is not the way to go.
:roll: Where did I heard this? 18 to 6? :))

Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Bogdan_DC » Mon, 04 Jan 2021, 13:23

amz wrote:Spain started its preparatior for RWC 2023 qualifiers

As we can see, the refs are playing again a major role ;)

https://www.revista22.es/2021/01/mele-g ... u-qTeJDGk4

That said, it should be noted that the arbitration possibly did not look at the two teams with the same eyes. In the second game we were called 19 punitive shots and Uruguay 6. Many of them were committed, but it is true that the criteria were not the same for both teams.

Still, it is true that we committed many more blows than we should have. At times, in the face of impotence and seeing ourselves sometimes overwhelmed by Uruguay, the emotional reaction of the players was that indiscipline which is not the way to go.
:roll: Where did I heard this? 18 to 6? :))

"Many of them were committed, but it is true that the criteria were not the same for both teams" Romania Mafia striking in Uruguay also...

Posts: 4753
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Armchair Fan » Mon, 04 Jan 2021, 13:37

Considering it was meant to be published on paper in a national print magazine I don't think the aim was to lobby. Yes, penalty count was high in that game, it's not magical numbers. Yes, we were very indisciplined and players lost the plot. Yes, refereeing wasn't good enough (that Uruguayan try...). Yes, we would have lost anyway due to our own bad decisions (that scrum in the dying minutes...).

Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed, 15 Mar 2017, 09:56
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: Rugby World Cup 2023 Qualifying

Postby Bogdan_DC » Mon, 04 Jan 2021, 14:20

Armchair Fan wrote:Considering it was meant to be published on paper in a national print magazine I don't think the aim was to lobby. Yes, penalty count was high in that game, it's not magical numbers. Yes, we were very indisciplined and players lost the plot. Yes, refereeing wasn't good enough (that Uruguayan try...). Yes, we would have lost anyway due to our own bad decisions (that scrum in the dying minutes...).
Just joking around about the biggest cry babies in the world of rugby. Is not Santos also the one whining about Samoans " being too tough"....in a game of rugby?

Previous

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests