Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Posts: 8664
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Postby victorsra » Tue, 08 Dec 2020, 14:28

Time without matches:

- Bosnia: since 2005
- Denmark: 2007
- Romania: 2008
- Guyana: 2008
- Norway: 2009
- Trinidad & Tobago: 2011
- Jamaica: 2011

It is a joke those countries above, for exemple, PNG or Czechia, that are currently active. All them should lose points. Come one, a decade inactive should be enough.

Posts: 461
Joined: Fri, 25 Apr 2014, 08:10
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Postby johnbirch » Sat, 12 Dec 2020, 22:15

victorsra wrote:Time without matches:

- Bosnia: since 2005
- Denmark: 2007
- Romania: 2008
- Guyana: 2008
- Norway: 2009
- Trinidad & Tobago: 2011
- Jamaica: 2011

It is a joke those countries above, for exemple, PNG or Czechia, that are currently active. All them should lose points. Come one, a decade inactive should be enough.

Suffice to say that Scrumqueens has asked and asked WR again for some explanation, but so far silence (which is a bit annyoying as there wouldn't be any rankings at all without the match data we gave them a few years back, but...).

Asked again tonight. May have to give up and write something up at this rate.

Posts: 461
Joined: Fri, 25 Apr 2014, 08:10
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Postby johnbirch » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 19:20


User avatar
Posts: 6443
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Postby Canalina » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 20:15

Thanks a lot, John, for this inquiry, but it seems to me that the WR explanation is not right. The Portugal entry with 64 points was indeed correct, according to their rule of a 2 pts cut per year
See viewtopic.php?f=6&t=366&start=100#p110696
I can't see why it should be wrong.
Maybe they've introduced a new rule that says more or less "even if a team entered with more than the minimum base of 40 points, after 25 years of consecutive inactivity their entry is virtually reduced to the minimum base of 40 points". But, if they really introduced a rule like this, they should communicate it.
My feeling is that they just wanted to eliminate the "irregularity" of a Portugal team in the Top20 despite not having played since a lot of time and they decided to remove that irregularity "manually", out of every rule, hoping that those finicky people of T2rugbyforum didn't discover it...

Anyway at least it seems that they've explained explicitly for the first time (if I'm not wrong) the inactivity penalty rule: "Any team that has not played a test for two years has six ranking points deducted at the start of each calendar year".

Posts: 461
Joined: Fri, 25 Apr 2014, 08:10
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Postby johnbirch » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 20:36

Oh I agree.

1995-1987 = 8
8x2=16
80-16=64

So hard to see the alleged error.

But at least we managed to get a detailed explanation. Frankly I am happy with that and not going to push it!

User avatar
Posts: 6443
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: OFFICIAL Women's Rugby Rankings

Postby Canalina » Wed, 16 Dec 2020, 22:07

:) :thumbup:

Previous

Return to Women's Rugby

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest