Japan V Scotland (if it's on)

First topic message reminder :

MATCH 40
SUNDAY 13 OCTOBER
KICK OFF (UK TIME)
11:45

SCOTLAND
WORLD RANKING 9TH

Referee: Ben O'Keeffe
International Stadium Yokohama, Kanagawa Prefecture, Yokohama City

(Or not at all)

Is this Schrodinger's game in that it can be considered both on and cancelled at the same time? I'm sure Jimbo will correct me in my interpretation....

I can easily see Ritchie becomming captain for the 6N and onwards from there.

He has pretty much guaranteed his place now and Wstson unlikely to be fit in time.

He seems to have attributes to do it as well, unlike some of our recents choices.

Could easily become a long term captain for us

https://www.theoffsideline.com/scotland-face-disciplinary-action-over-response-to-match-cancellation-threat/

World Rugby now taking disciplinary action against Mark Dodson.

This all seems rather pointless as it is all done and dusted now and smacks not a little bit of vindictiveness.

Apart from anything else, you can see from the quotes in the article that MD was actually very reserved with the language he used and some of the more lurid headlines about threats to sue were fabrications of the press.

It does seem that WC do not like being challenged about their ways of doing things. I can't imagine that MD will be backward in defending himself and that this has the potential to become very messy!

BigGee wrote:https://www.theoffsideline.com/scotland-face-disciplinary-action-over-response-to-match-cancellation-threat/

World Rugby now taking disciplinary action against Mark Dodson.

This all seems rather pointless as it is all done and dusted now and smacks not a little bit of vindictiveness.

Apart from anything else, you can see from the quotes in the article that MD was actually very reserved with the language he used and some of the more lurid headlines about threats to sue were fabrications of the press.

It does seem that WC do not like being challenged about their ways of doing things. I can't imagine that MD will be backward in defending himself and that this has the potential to become very messy!

Little does WR understand that we can now meet them off the bus.

So, Ryan Wilson is constantly castigated (fairly) for a complete lack of ability. however now you want him to put on his Batman Cape once more and face off with Brett Gosper.

Can't help but think everyone should have just moved on - no one is going to win out of this.

It's not like he made personal or defamatory comments - the gist was it was the SRU's view that their contractual agreement didn't stop the game being moved.

Petty from world rugby

RDW wrote:Can't help but think everyone should have just moved on - no one is going to win out of this.

It's not like he made personal or defamatory comments - the gist was it was the SRU's view that their contractual agreement didn't stop the game being moved.

I think WR are probably saying they might have listened to 'legal' arguments behind the scenes but that they're not going to be seen to tolerate a public circus press conference used to stir the media.
I think it's the very public contrariness of the Scottish exec that has rattled them.

I can see why the Scottish did it that way and in doing so denying Omertà evasion to the WR big wigs.  But WR are still the big wigs, and they seem like they got a car boot ready for a body.

Can you even punish someone for threatening legal action? Bit of a dictatorship if so...

It sounds like behind the scenes he's been very forthright in meetings with World Rugby so it's maybe something to do with that.

BigGee wrote:https://www.theoffsideline.com/scotland-face-disciplinary-action-over-response-to-match-cancellation-threat/

World Rugby now taking disciplinary action against Mark Dodson.

This all seems rather pointless as it is all done and dusted now and smacks not a little bit of vindictiveness.

Apart from anything else, you can see from the quotes in the article that MD was actually very reserved with the language he used and some of the more lurid headlines about threats to sue were fabrications of the press.

It does seem that WC do not like being challenged about their ways of doing things. I can't imagine that MD will be backward in defending himself and that this has the potential to become very messy!

Well if you can’t criticise their referees in public, I suspect you can’t criticise them without recourse.

Dodson was in a very tricky position - some will say he was rash to take this into the public sphere, but I have some sympathy with what he was trying to achieve - there was not a lot he could actually do, so was looking to pull all the levers he could.

He also didn't actually ever threaten legal action, only that he had sought a legal opinion...quite an important distinction which has been conflated (not unsurprisingly) by the press.

RDW wrote:Can you even punish someone for threatening legal action? Bit of a dictatorship if so...

It sounds like behind the scenes he's been very forthright in meetings with World Rugby so it's maybe something to do with that.

I heard as punishment World Rugby are planning on ordering the SRU to give a contract extension to Gregor Townsend.

Silly jokes aside I think world rugby are just making themselves look bad once again. It hasnt been a good RWC for them.

EST wrote:Dodson was in a very tricky position - some will say he was rash to take this into the public sphere, but I have some sympathy with what he was trying to achieve - there was not a lot he could actually do, so was looking to pull all the levers he could.

He also didn't actually ever threaten legal action, only that he had sought a legal opinion...quite an important distinction which has been conflated (not unsurprisingly) by the press.  

Great point EST.

Taking the case to court would be more financially viable than keeping toonie on.

I have a little theory now rumbling in my ever over-active mind that perhaps WR is doing some Karma antics on old school 'Tier 1' sides that perhaps threw a spanner in their big money bucks Global Season plans from some months back.

The Mafia always have long memories, and let's face it, these monstrous Global Sporting organisations often act like they've watched the Godfather too many times.

Tbf the way dodson behaved with the press was very insensitive. I'm surprised he hasn't turned to twitter with "World rugby doesn't care about scottish fans. Sad. #makescotlandgreatagain #POTSRU"

Anyway, as always in these debates, spare a thought for real lives wiped out as all kinds of people spoke about rugby contracts and terms of engagement. And maybe, as a mark of genuine respect, WR really should just let things lie.
Also at this time in a rugby context, people should spare a thought for Italy, who had as much to lose in theory, as much to gain in theory.

So yes, WR should just drop all the fussy and crass bullschidt about Rugby oneupmanship and just allow the contest to play on to its conclusion with dignity.

Having rewatched the first half, the scrum really killed Scotland. Dell kept getting penalised (for what reason I don't quite understand) and that resulted in the penalty just before half-time that lead to the killer Japanese try.

It really was small margins too and they seemed to centre around Russell. He knocked a ball on (which looked suspiciously backwards through the hands, but as the ball was in front of him I have no qualms with the refs decision). He also made a good sneaky tackle to the scrum half around the ruck but had the slightest of brushes on the ball that lead to the Japanese scrum that lead to the penalty and subsequently a Try. Had he not glanced the ball with his hand he would have won a turnover in Japans half.

It goes to show, Japan are a side who can really feed off your mistakes and Scotland are just making far, far too many at the moment. Against SA I think Japan could be a real handful if they can force mistakes from SA like they did against Scotland. I think the Boks will be keeping an eye on the scrum as well because there was definitely some clever trickery going on there.

Like I said before, you simply arent going to get any 50 50 calls v Japan. I do think the refs have given Japan the benefit of the doubt in the scrums and at the offside line in their big games so far. However, they are the home side so probably to be expected.

Everyone probably suspecting this kinda thing but nobody wants to say it in public.  Where's Dodson when you need him?

Japan are a runaway train..... that kinda momentum will be hard to stop but Rassie talking with a referee in advance and saying in no uncertain terms that he knows he coaches a better scrum than Japan.... that might cause a first gulp of doubt in officialdom.

As said already, someone has to be the first to say something.

Smacks of World Rugby wanting to prove they have bigger legal muscles. Idiots

Wayne Barnes has the whistle for the Boks-Japan game - he's not a pushover.

BamBam wrote:Smacks of World Rugby wanting to prove they have bigger legal muscles. Idiots

No, from their point of view it's a rational and probably necessary step. Dodson, like everyone else, signed his union up to the tournament rules. He may have been disappointed with the outcome, but publicly threatening legal action over them is a serious piece of escalation. For World Rugby that risks being the start of a slippery slope in which everyone feels they can lawyer up if they don't like a decision.

This is the officialdom equivalent of a player criticising a referee's decision. Politely question it and sometimes you will be heard. React badly to it and you will be marched back 10. Harangue the ref and you will be spending time on the sidelines. This is somewhere between a yellow card and the equivalent of Dylan Hartley calling Wayne Barnes a cheat.

Poorfour wrote:

BamBam wrote:Smacks of World Rugby wanting to prove they have bigger legal muscles. Idiots

No, from their point of view it's a rational and probably necessary step. Dodson, like everyone else, signed his union up to the tournament rules. He may have been disappointed with the outcome, but publicly threatening legal action over them is a serious piece of escalation. For World Rugby that risks being the start of a slippery slope in which everyone feels they can lawyer up if they don't like a decision.

This is the officialdom equivalent of a player criticising a referee's decision. Politely question it and sometimes you will be heard. React badly to it and you will be marched back 10. Harangue the ref and you will be spending time on the sidelines. This is somewhere between a yellow card and the equivalent of Dylan Hartley calling Wayne Barnes a cheat.

I don't think that the two are comparable.

You can criticise a referee's interpretation of the rules but you cannot point to another set of rules the ref should be following but appears not to be. The SRU's position was that there were a series of contract terms around FM which WR seemed to refuse to acknowledge were even applicable. Nobody knows what the nature of the dialogue was between the two bodies but as has been said on many of these boards, I would love to understand how every poster's own domestic union would have reacted if this was happening to their team. There's a lot of spare time to be 'dignified' when you're watching the tournament at home on the telly.

WR needs to be seen to protect itself to discourage patterns of behaviour and that's fine but I hope in the hearing they review the text of what was actually released to the press because nothing I have seen that came from the SRU was abusive or disrespectful. They were just saying that they would protect their team by any means at their disposal.

BigGee wrote:I can easily see Ritchie becomming captain for the 6N and onwards from there.

He has pretty much guaranteed his place now and Wstson unlikely to be fit in time.

He seems to have attributes to do it as well, unlike some of our recents choices.

Could easily become a long term captain for us

Not sure what leadership skills Ritchie has. Has he ever met anyone aff the bus?

He is a great player though, and not just this WC and the last 6Ns he was immense in his earlier showings for us when Watson was injured.

Watson is a special player and it would be inconceivable that he is dropped for Ritchie, it's also inconceivable that that Ritchie could not be selected. You then only have one choice and it's been done at Edinburgh plenty of times, Ritchie plays 6, Watson plays 7. Big Bill Mata at 8 (for Edinburgh)

This keeps taking me back to my earlier argument that Edinburgh have too many good backrowers. Either Ritchie or Bradbury wont get weekly game time with big Bill around. Meanwhile Glasgow have a back row that is as scary as a John Inman impersonator and a scrum half (Wee horne) who sits on a bench getting cold most days.

One of the Edinburgh backrowers should be given to Glasgow and Edinburgh get wee horne. At least that would have been the plan before Groom turned up!!!

PS, loving the Ritchie tweet and old Tim Visser piping in too

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/50052435

what a joke

that gilpin tool should resign. his contingency planning was non existent

It's interesting in that piece - an allusion to WR earlier publically criticising the standard of refereeing (by inference, specific referees).

Hmmm, so they themselves (WR) could be accused of bringing rugby into disrepute when they could have chosen instead to admonish referees in private behind closed doors.

Already an Orwellian sense of logic applies. All animals are equal but.........

I still don't know what rules Dodson has supposedly broken to warrant potential disciplinary.

SecretFly wrote:It's interesting in that piece - an allusion to WR earlier publically criticising the standard of refereeing (by inference, specific referees).

Hmmm, so they themselves (WR) could be accused of bringing rugby into disrepute when they could have chosen instead to admonish referees in private behind closed doors.

Already an Orwellian sense of logic applies.  All animals are equal but.........

Well judging by Scotlands performances they arent equal

SecretFly wrote:I think WR are probably saying they might have listened to 'legal' arguments behind the scenes but that they're not going to be seen to tolerate a public circus press conference used to stir the media.

They set the tone by digging out their own referees in the first few days of the tournament. Can't try and play the media for your benefit and complain when it bites back.

SecretFly wrote:I have a little theory now rumbling in my ever over-active mind that perhaps WR is doing some Karma antics on old school 'Tier 1' sides that perhaps threw a spanner in their big money bucks Global Season plans from some months back.

That's definitely a backdrop to everything that's happening recently. And perhaps an ugly one as well - any gain that can be had to shape the way certain stakeholders want it to will be taken. Huge, decisive time in rugby as a sport in the next few years. Could completley change the way it is played, how it's run, where the power lies etc.

World Rugby and IRFU have refuted claims by Stephen Jones (journo not Wales Attack Coach) that IRFU were applying pressure to have this game abandoned.

Journo......come off it.

LondonTiger wrote:World Rugby and IRFU have refuted claims by Stephen Jones (journo not Wales Attack Coach) that IRFU were applying pressure to have this game abandoned.

What he wrote:

The crucial game between Scotland and Japan is on but the fallout is certain to be felt for months. The Scots threatened legal action if the match were to be cancelled without being rearranged, but it has emerged that the Irish and New Zealand unions were vehemently opposed to any rearrangement.

Scotland were infuriated when, with Typhoon Hagibis approaching the Tokyo/Yokohama area, World Rugby made it clear that any game cancelled could not be rearranged and would be called a 0-0 draw, with two points each. That would send Scotland home and Ireland and Japan into the quarter-finals.

The Scots issued several demands for the game to be moved if weather prevented it going ahead, and attacked World Rugby (WR) for not having a back-up plan. WR pointed to the severity of the storm and the logistical nightmare of arranging four matches. Italy had already lost a chance of qualifying when their final game, against New Zealand, was called off. Scotland then threatened legal action, only for Japan coach Jamie Joseph to say he found that disrespectful, as if they felt they only needed the game to be on to go through.

We can reveal that WR looked at the possibility of rearranging matches but decided that all cancelled games would have to be played. Some believe that as Italy did not have their game then neither should Scotland today. But WR provisionally booked flights, hotels and trains in case they needed them, alerted broadcasters, police, medical teams and government.

The last thing they needed were the interventions by Ireland and New Zealand. We understand the latter may have been dismayed by changes to their itinerary but the motivation of Ireland to stop the Scotland v Japan game taking place is unclear. There is no suggestion it was because they are one of three teams involved in the battle for qualifying — their match with Samoa yesterday was never in doubt as it was played well away from the storm’s path.

The Irish and Scottish Unions have been at loggerheads for some time after Scotland did not vote for the Irish bid to host the 2023 World Cup. It is also important to state that WR failed to act on the possible rearranging of games not because of any pressure from any other source but because it presented them with a logistical nightmare. Everybody will be working hard to get the tournament back on the road. But if the typhoon has passed, the political storm still rages.

RDW wrote:I still don't know what rules Dodson has supposedly broken to warrant potential disciplinary.

The bro code?

RDW wrote:I still don't know what rules Dodson has supposedly broken to warrant potential disciplinary.

Genuinely shocked they didnt have a contingency plan in place to ensure you received a full detailed explanation of their grievance before anyone else. You should probably take legal action unless they call it off.

LondonTiger wrote:World Rugby and IRFU have refuted claims by Stephen Jones (journo not Wales Attack Coach) that IRFU were applying pressure to have this game abandoned.

What a dumb thing for Jones to claim. There wasnt anything for Ireland to gain from the game being called off. The only way Ireland could win the group was if the game was played.

Seems obvious the IRFU didnt want the game called off.

Jones is rather stupid. Quite enjoyed him getting put back in his box by the Welsh Dalai Lama

Brian moore, someone I would trust, said that new zealdn had expressed a desire to stick to the pre tournament rules. Something which has again jow been denied.

Moore also said that world rugby offered NZ the option to reschedule the game to be played yesterday, which he claims they turned down.

Think it was reported NZ were happy to bring the game forward, but any move that would eat in to QF recovery and prep time was a hard no.

Which is hard to argue with.

Good article on the BBC Website by Tom English, which unpicks the whole story somewhat.

Dodson did what he had to do and as any other of the big boys would have done in his situation!

Scotland won't be flavour of the month in World Rugby circles for the foreseeable either!

When the news came through that World Rugby had put the SRU in the dock, the least surprised person in Japan would have been Mark Dodson, the man at the heart of the complaint. Dodson knew this was coming.

The game's governing body has referred the SRU to an independent disputes committee in the wake of comments made about the potential cancellation of Scotland's game against Japan in Yokohama last Sunday. Typhoon Hagibis had put the game in jeopardy and the SRU were incensed by what they saw as World Rugby's intransigence in coming up with a contingency plan that would have allowed the match to go ahead a day later.

It did occur on schedule, of course, and Scotland lost. They're out of the World Cup but the chief executive is now in the frame. This saga still has a way to run.







Late last week, reports suggested that the SRU were getting heavy and were threatening to sue the governing body if the game had to be cancelled. There was a story in the Daily Telegraph that they would seek millions of pounds worth of damages if the game didn't go ahead. A spokesman for Scottish Rugby said that Nick DeMarco QC had been brought in to pore over World Rugby's participation agreement and to plot the way ahead.
Scotland face hearing over Dodson comments
RWC podcast: What next for Townsend & Scotland
'No need to change style or coach' - Price

The headline about possibly pursuing legal action, and particularly the one that gave the impression - true or otherwise - that the SRU were chasing the money, were damaging to them. Mired in a battle with World Rugby, they may not have seen the optics all that clearly.

The headline might have been overly dramatic and the notion of an imminent compensation challenge a little exaggerated, but there is no doubt that part of DeMarco's brief was to assess how much financial damage would be caused to the "SRU brand" if the game was binned.

It wasn't their intention to pursue action against World Rugby any time soon, but a general discussion had taken place behind the scenes about what road they might go down in the months ahead in the event of the game being called off. That nuance didn't really come out and so, to some, it looked bad. "Ah, this is a money grab, this is grubby stuff, people may be about to lose their lives and the SRU are banging on about law suits and compensation".

Dispute has become bitter and divisive

On Thursday, the SRU feared they were "on the edge of being shafted". While World Rugby were saying that their own rules stated clearly the game could not be moved to the day after Hagibis had blown through, the SRU spokesperson argued that World Rugby's own rules suggested a force majeure clause and that they did, indeed, have the option to move it - and if they didn't then there was the inference, if not quite a directly stated threat, of legal action.

From that point on, it became bitter and divisive. Dodson received a warning from the sport's governing body. Upbraiding the union for potentially bringing the game into disrepute, it was a shot across the bows. Any more loose talk and a charge would be brought.

By then, Dodson was incensed and on a war footing. He felt that he had to do anything and everything to persuade World Rugby into moving the game back if it couldn't be played on Sunday. He argued that any chief executive in his position would have felt duty bound to do the same. He went on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Friday. "For World Rugby to just simply state the game has to be cancelled goes against the whole sporting integrity of the tournament," he said.



England's match with France at Yokohama Stadium was cancelled

England's match with France at Yokohama Stadium was cancelled

He referred to World Rugby's cancellation of England versus France and New Zealand versus Italy as avoidable if only World Rugby had contingency plans in place. Italy were denied a crack at the All Blacks. Had things gone their way - a big if, to be fair - they could still have made the quarter-finals. They were robbed of that chance and it set a precedent.

Having one rule for Italy, the governing body couldn't have another rule for Scotland. The game either went ahead on Sunday as planned or Scotland would meet the same fate as the Italians. "We're not going to let Scotland be the collateral damage for a decision made in haste," said Dodson in that Radio 4 interview.

Primarily, it is that comment that subsequently brought the charge from World Rugby. Dodson felt it was worth taking the rap. Doubling down, he called a news conference in Yokohama on Friday and appealed for common sense. That didn't go down well with World Rugby either.

They fired back with their own statement, effectively criticising the SRU for unedifying grandstanding on the eve of a Typhoon Hagibis, a storm that had been predicted to kill, and has killed, dozens of people. As of early evening on Tuesday in Tokyo, the death toll stood at 66.

The SRU interpreted World Rugby's statement as a crass and insulting conflation of events, an attempt to direct public scorn on to the whingeing Scots. In the face of an accusation of a lack of sensitivity for the impending chaos of Hagibis their ire rose ever higher.

SRU erred with compensation narrative

How will this shake down? By World Rugby's disciplinary rules, Dodson would appear to be bang to rights. The SRU will get a verbal slap or maybe a fine. The relationship between the two bodies - or between individuals on both bodies - was cool long before this. Now it's in the ice box.

Allowing a narrative to be formed that they were going to law and were looking for millions in compensation if the game was cancelled, the SRU erred. Dodson has denied that he ever spoke about money, but somebody in that organisation did. That's one point.

The other point is this - had the chief executive of any other union been in the same position as Dodson, you can bet your last fiver that they would have gone to war, too. The talk of the SRU's actions being an affront to the values of rugby and against the spirit of the game - that's been said numerous times - is sanctimonious garbage.

Ireland flew a lawyer in from Dublin just to contest Bundee Aki's red card against Samoa. Earlier in the tournament, Australia flew in a QC from Brisbane to challenge the red card given to Reece Hodge. If they did that for a red card, what would they have done if threatened with an exit from the tournament on a technicality? What would any of the big unions have done?

If anybody seriously thinks that the real heavyweights of this sport would have shrugged and accepted their fate then they've come down in the last shower.

On Sunday evening, in the hours before kick-off in Yokohama, Alan Gilpin worked the media room. Gilpin is World Rugby's chief operating officer and Rugby World Cup's tournament director. He moved around talking to journalists for about an hour, mostly those working with English newspapers. It would have been a surprise had some of the chat not revolved around the bitterness of the previous few days.

He walked past the area where the Scottish press was gathered on his way in and on his way out. Not a word was spoken.
































Best of BBC iPlayer

Collapse2005 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:World Rugby and IRFU have refuted claims by Stephen Jones (journo not Wales Attack Coach) that IRFU were applying pressure to have this game abandoned.

What a dumb thing for Jones to claim. There wasnt anything for Ireland to gain from the game being called off. The only way Ireland could win the group was if the game was played.

Seems obvious the IRFU didnt want the game called off.

The suggestion seems to be they were pushing this before they played Samoa and had guaranteed qualification.

In the end the game was played so much of the argument becomes moot.

However having found their contingency was unworkable and they cancelled England/France and NZ/Italy, they World Rugby had left themselves nowhere to go. They could not then postpone a game (against the pre-tournament rules) having already cancelled two matches.

Also in the subsequent firestorm everyone seems to have ignored Canada/Namibia who missed out on what was their most important game. It was nice to see the Canadian players out doing disaster relief work at the time their match would have been played. Top blokes.

No I think it was unfair on them too.

Good to see World rugby about to take action against Scotland for their comments.

Taylorman wrote:Good to see World rugby about to take action against Scotland for their comments.

I wouldn't get too chipper, if they find out about this place you'll be banged up for life

miaow wrote:

RDW wrote:I still don't know what rules Dodson has supposedly broken to warrant potential disciplinary.

The bro code?

The law of not being a complete be11end? Dodson breaks that one fairly regularly.

Let’s face it he could easily have kept all of the discussions with World Rugby as they should’ve been, behind closed doors. But his own ego wouldn’t have allowed for that.

LondonTiger wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:World Rugby and IRFU have refuted claims by Stephen Jones (journo not Wales Attack Coach) that IRFU were applying pressure to have this game abandoned.

What a dumb thing for Jones to claim. There wasnt anything for Ireland to gain from the game being called off. The only way Ireland could win the group was if the game was played.

Seems obvious the IRFU didnt want the game called off.

The suggestion seems to be they were pushing this before they played Samoa and had guaranteed qualification.

Just another little nugget in the continuing epic 'Love-In' between Stephen Jones and Ireland. The man is obsessed.

The only side Stephen Jones ‘loves’ more is NZ. His column after the game is going to be something to savour!