Jump to content

Talk:2023 Rugby World Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pool tables

[edit]

Why are they showing teams as qualified and progressing before any matches are played? S C Cheese (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are. What makes you think that? – PeeJay 16:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The green and yellow background and the text in the "Qualification" Column for each country. S C Cheese (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, that only indicates what happens to the teams in those positions at the end of the pool stage. Nothing there suggests anyone has already qualified, IMO. – PeeJay 18:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at eg Pool A. A naive reader would conclude that New Zealand and France would "Advance to knockout stage, and qualification to the 2027 Rugby World Cup". S C Cheese (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think even a naive reader would have the mental capacity to realise that no team advances without playing any games. – PeeJay 09:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the same problem will occur after some games have been played but before the genuine outcome is known.
PS: Both of the naive readers that I have asked thought that the teams in the coloured rows had already achieved what is in the last column. S C Cheese (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for that. How would you suggest the problem be fixed? – PeeJay 09:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move the qualification outcome rules to text outside the table. Only colour in and add text to the table when the outcome is known (which may be before the last match). S C Cheese (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not likely to work, as the colors in the tables are 'hard-coded' within the underlying template. Bad template design that doesn't account for future or incomplete competition is only part of the problem - an unwillingness to simply change the presumptive descriptor is equally to blame. Wikipedia is not in the business of presuming future outcomes, and it is naïve to suggest that all readers must interpret these tables with the utmost caution - because, they're currently nonsensical. Fanx (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. When they've actaully qualified a (Q) next to the team name should be added, at least that's how it's done elsewhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that's what will happen. This is the same format as we use for soccer groups, and it's worked pretty well so far. – PeeJay 08:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would work. The details and implications of qualifying could then remain unchanged in the text accompanying the box. Or then (and only then) be added to the relevant row for the team. S C Cheese (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So now at least one team will certainly go through. But if you look at those green backgrounds they don't tell you which it is. Because they are shown in all of the pools, although it isn't yet certain in some of those pools. It's a very misleading display. S C Cheese (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an imperfect solution for an imperfect problem. You're welcome to mock something up on this page, if you like. – PeeJay 10:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following the discussion above, and I agree that it is very confusing. Part of the problem is using the same colours for a completed pool table (and qualification positions) as for a pool that is still in progress. You are relying on readers who may not be familiar with the system to be able to distinguish between pools that are still in progress and ones that are not yet complete. Imagine, if you will, that the green and yellow were only used for completed pool tables, and that a different key (indicating that a team currently occupies a qualifiction position but that this may not be the final position) is used while the pools are in play (e.g. red and orange). That would make it much clearer. There is also an issue with the Q and E symbols (and the H for the host country is completely unnecessary and contributes to information overload). At the moment, with two pools complete (pools A and D) and two pools not yet completed, the page is even more confusing because two of the pool tables are using the Q/E notation and two are not. It would be better to be consistent and use Q/E in all the tables until all the pools are finished. At the moment, you have both colours (pools A and D) and letters plus colours (pools B and C) indicating the qualification status. The other alternative is to only use colours when a pool has been completed. There are ways to do this in templates, or failing that to do it manually. The editors who do that will be making things much clearer for the readers. Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The other alternative is to only use colours when a pool has been completed."
Yes. This would be much better. S C Cheese (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random letters in the game results and missing information

[edit]

___ Why are there random letters which are unexplained in the game summaries? such a C and M. These are not explained one iota anywhere. Additionally why is not all the information recorded in the game results? Such as missed conversions where a player doesn't make any in a game. This is confusing and i tried to fix this but came up against the lazy mans argument of this is how its always ben done, so let's carry on with the confusion and omissions. which is not a reason to not fix something confusing and therefor broken.

This is not a technical insiders only set of articles on Rugby Union and frankly the carrying on like this of the omission and confusion is exclusionary to those who do not know the inner workings of those who decided the above things...telepathy is not something which is real. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Think about what happens after a try: there's a conversion attempted, which will either be converted or missed. I see where you're coming from, but it really isn't that complicated. Regardless, I think this discussion would be better suited to taking place at WT:RU, since it will affect way more than just this tournament's articles. – PeeJay 16:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no explanation of the letters anywhere, the information is duplicative with the conversion information and is a confusing addition after the time of the trys. It is no way as simple as you believe it is by adding the random letters with no explanation. The outsider here of which i am clearly one, is confused by these random technical letters being where they are. Additionally it makes reading the scoring much less easy as random unexplained letters break the results flow.
As for the requirement to go through a wikiproject for their approval...what goes against Wikipedia:WikiProject#Function. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say you should seek WP:RU's approval, I said that would be the best venue for this discussion as it will affect every article under their remit. Please don't straw-man my position. – PeeJay 17:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic bickering
Please back off the ledge, with the personalisation of your comments. If you think the Wikiproject you are a member of needs to be included, loop them in. Stop demanding I and others do things you could easily do. Also use of phrases such as 'Under their remit' is very ownership style language, they have no 'remit over articles' the wikiproject is just a community group with interest in Rugby Union articles.
Getting back to the substance of things, why are the letters included, and what are the reasons for keeping on the letters? I acknowledge you have explained what you believe they mean, but that is not reason enough to keep them. The issues with the keeping on using of these random and distracting letters which are duplicative and barrier-creating, seems pretty clear cut to cease using these letters. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I personalise my comments? I said you straw-manned my position, which is a fact, and something that you have continued to do. There is no "ownership" implied by saying that WP:RU has these articles under their purview/aegis/remit. What I am telling you is that there is no point having the discussion here, in an isolated corner of Wikipedia, when you could have it in a more centralised location, where those who would have an interest in contributing to the discussion might see it. Your WP:WIKILAWYERING is becoming somewhat tiresome. It seems like you're the only one who has an issue with the letters anyway, and I feel like you're being obnoxious merely for the sake of it. – PeeJay 23:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zero substance to the points raised…I shall ignore your off topic ad hominems and distractions from the substance, I reject all of it 100% and your substance free response which amounts to you simply seem resistant of change and improvement. I stand by all of the valid point I made which you dismiss with another weird personal attack of whatever ‘wikilawyering’ is, it seems you don’t like how Wikipedia works. Care to try again? Also you conveniently ignored the compromise suggested below…care to try again on that point aswell? 2607:FB91:1715:90CD:D901:5CFC:964D:1E9A (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you? Where did the other guy go? – PeeJay 10:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stick to the substance & worry less about the contributor(s)…this is not about anything but omitting information and random letters…the above shows your focus is wrong…and you are not here to be collaboratively, focus only on the content.
You are still ignoring the proposal below…why is that?
Do you have any substantive replies in the content? 2607:FB91:1715:90CD:D901:5CFC:964D:1E9A (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just waiting for literally anyone else to contribute to this discussion. As I said, you're literally the only person who has complained (well, the other guy on the other IP address was... if you signed up for an account this would be a lot less confusing), so let's see if anyone else has the mental issues you do before trying anything new. – PeeJay 13:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is proof if ever it was needed you are not here to build an encyclopaedia, you are here for a battleground...please engage or you will be reported for not being here to build an encyclopaedia and for personalising the discussions.
Now are you going to engage in the discussion or are you going to ignore the discussions and sulk or are you going to continue to attack the contributor.
There is a proposal below and there are plenty of reasoning above given for the issues on the substance.
Please engage constructively and please respond to the proposal. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more straw-manning. I told you I'm willing to have the discussion, but if it's just you and me talking, we're not going to get anywhere. Feel free to report me right now if you wish, doesn't bother me in the slightest. – PeeJay 15:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now asked for a third opinion...If you carry on with the vinegar route and the ban-hammer will find you.
I also note not a single word on the proposal below...I find that very telling and very much a my way or the highway approach. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if you are worried about impact why not use the 2023 Rugby World Cup as a test bed for how it works? Remove the letters and include ALL of the information. I think you will find the barriers and confusion caused by these two issues melt away. If you don't want that then I question why you want to keep doing something patently confusing and barrier-creating. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that adding the letters "c" and "m" may be confusing to casual visitors to a page with match results, who may not know what these letters mean. These letters should not be included for that reason. It's against the WP:MOS ("Avoid unwarranted use"). This argument becomes even stronger when considering that according to the MOS, the first occurrence of an abbreviation should be written in full, something that's impractical in rugbyboxes. For visitors to the page who do know more about points scoring in rugby union, the addition of "c" and "m" is also unnecessary, because they will be able to see whether a try has been converted (or not) by looking at the recorded minute in which a try is scored and a successful conversion has been made. After all, a person with knowledge about points scoring in rugby union will know that a conversion kick will have to be taken within 90 seconds after a try has been scored and will be able to connect a successful conversion with the preceding try.
I also agree that if only one conversion or penalty kick has been attempted and missed by a specific player, this should be recorded (example: "player's name" (0/1)). There are two main reasons for this. The first is that – because consistently the names of points scorers are included – it gives information about which player has attempted the kick. The second reason is that teams are allowed to decline taking a kick and readers wouldn't be able to see the difference between a missed kick and a kick that has not been taken. A practical example of a situation in which this may occur is when there is not much game time left in a game and the team that has scored the try needs more than the 2 points from the conversion to win the game and wants to ensure that there is still time for a re-start of the game and time on the clock for an attempt to score a try, penalty goal or drop goal.
Finally, I should add that the abbreviations "c" and "m" are not consistently included in rugbyboxes in rugby union articles. So "consistency" cannot be a reason for including these letters. Ruggalicious (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The practice originated at a time when we did not list the time when conversions were scored, so it made more sense then. Now that we list conversion times, I'm happier to accept that the abbreviations are no longer needed. However, I still disagree that we need to list players who didn't make any kicks. I'm not even that happy with listing players' conversion/penalty success rate, since that's often so hard to source. The {{rugbybox}} template should be for listing actual contributions to the score, not failed attempts. ESPN don't list kick success rates in the brief reports at the top of their match pages, nor do the BBC, either here or here. We shouldn't be creating our own way of reporting results that isn't supported by other sources. – PeeJay 18:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons listed above set out why including everything reduces confusion. The rugby boxes are there to record the events of the game which could lead to a score. When there is penalty kicks in a game the missed kicks would not be listed and that would be incredibly confusing. The example of including misses is seen here 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The penalty shootout is an entirely different scenario. – PeeJay 19:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same principle, either include all misses or none. That way no confusion is created. More information is less confusing including missed and potentially delcined kicks aids in understanding and reduces confusion. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same principle at all. A penalty shootout isn't even considered part of the game itself, so naturally it is displayed in a different way. By its very nature of one player kicking after another, every kick should be recorded. Missed penalties and conversions during the course of the match are not comparable. – PeeJay 22:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, isn't a declined kick practically the same as a missed kick? The result is the same, there just isn't a "kick taker" to attribute the "miss" to. – PeeJay 18:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A declined kick has not been taken. A missed kick has been taken. These are two different events. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've obviously missed the point I was making. I'm saying I would put an m after a try where the conversion was declined, since the result is the same as if it were missed. But hopefully that isn't going to be a problem any more. – PeeJay 19:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The letter is unknown in meaning and confusing. I am clear on what is being attempted with the letters, it is just confusing and not helpful. If you were to use the notation them M would be even more confusing surely a D would be needed. Which proves the point of the letters being confusing. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion, Ruggalicious. I could not have put it better myself. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that adding the letters "c" and "m" is unnecessary for the reasons you have given above. Particularly given conversion times are listed, it's pretty easy to see if a try was successfully converted or not.
I don't think that missed kicks should be recorded. As mentioned by @PeeJay, match reports from newspapers and other sources rarely ever list every missed attempts at goal and who missed them. While it may be easy to watch back replays of high profile games, many matches which make use of the {{rugbybox}} are not televised. This would make it almost impossible to accurately record missed kicks consistently.
How would missed attempts at goal even be displayed? Would new fields be necessary for missed penalties and conversions? Would missed drop goals be worthy of recording? Frankly I don't think it's necessary.
Also I think this talk section should be moved to the talk page of {tl|rugbybox}}, seeing as the template itself is what being discussed. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, either Template talk:Rugby box or WT:RU would be more appropriate. – PeeJay 22:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done they can now all come here following the links on both talk pages 67.149.160.101 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear cut to abolish using the weird and confusing letter notations...that should happen immediately...there is though more to discuss on missed kick takers who cant score anything in a game. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a trend in that direction. However, since you've only just posted at WT:RU, we should allow the WikiProject's participants the opportunity to weigh in. There's no need for everything to happen right now. – PeeJay 19:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where to put this in the thread. Personally I don't like the M/C convention. We have the conversion box to record which tries were converted. Generally speaking when reading a scoring summary I would not expect to see such notation & cannot recall any sources that record it like this. I would also say that missed conversions are occasionally, but rarely recorded. So would side on not including them in rugbyboxes as a rule, unless the sourced match report contains the information. Skeene88 (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board with that. Out of interest, though, what should we do in situations where we know which try/tries were converted/missed, but we don't know what the official timing of each score was? Omitting the c/m makes sense when we know the timings, but what about when we don't? – PeeJay 20:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've rarely seen a game where there wasn't a source that included the minute a conversion, penalty kick or drop kick was successfully taken. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we include the minute a kick was missed. You just include the missed kick in the count like Pen: "A. Player" (1/2) 22' where only the time of the successful kick is recorded, or Con: "B. Kicker" (0/2) when the kicker missed both his conversion kicks. World Rugby does include them all – successful and missed kicks, including the player's name and the minute –  for Rugby World Cup matches in their coverage. Rugbypass lists them all, too, in their live updates. The Tribe app, which I consider a reliable source, lists them all for the major competitions and tournaments, but I wouldn't know how to reference an app. There are far more sources like this, and I'm happy to provide a list, if someone points me in the right direction where to write that list (where it can be easily found), because I have the impression that several editors are not aware of the existence of those sources and are guided by only the few they know.
We would also need to know what to do if the official competition match report doesn't record the missed kicks, but another source does. Often, the link to the official match report is included in the rugbybox, so where do we reference the other, more complete source (if at all)? Ruggalicious (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No no, what I'm saying is, what about historical matches where the info was never recorded? The scope of this change reaches beyond Rugby World Cup matches, which are very well covered, but for Five Nations matches in the 1970s, you'd be hard-pressed to find an exact minute for any scores.
I'm also not seeing where that World Rugby link includes missed kicks in the summary. I see the three tries, the three conversions by Jaminet and the two Jaminet penalties; I also see the one conversion by Etcheverry, but I don't see any missed penalty attempts or the missed Uruguay conversion. Are you saying we should supplement our summary boxes with info not from a summary box? – PeeJay 10:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to change anything for historical matches if there is no source that includes the minutes of tries or kicks. Changes can be made from the present (or the not too distant past). As to that World Rugby link, I suggest you look beyond the summary. It's clearly mentioned in the time line under the "coverage" tab. Ruggalicious (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you think the c/m notation is okay for matches without sources for the timing of scores? Sorry to harp on this, but I want to be clear. And yes, I saw what appears in the "Coverage" tab, but we're not trying to replicate the coverage tab, we're trying to replicate what we generally see in match summaries, not minute-by-minute commentaries. – PeeJay 16:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Response to third opinion request:
Technically, I should decline this request because there are more than two people involved already. However, I would like to provide some guidance anyway.

Unless an abbreviation is found on this list, MOS:ABBR directs editors to avoid the use of abbreviations to reduce "potential confusion", especially for readers who are unfamiliar with the content. This is important to keep in mind because Wikipedia is often the starting point for someone who is new to a topic. As someone who is not very familiar with rugby, the use of abbreviations as column headers translated to incomprehensible data for me, requiring research elsewhere to understand to content. Clearly, MOS:ABBR applies here. I appreciate that every sport has its own lingo and that abbreviations are commonly used in media reporting. However, that tradition goes back to newspapers that had limited space and also had to typeset words one letter at a time. We have no such limitations on Wikipedia and can easily accommodate more information. I suggest one of two solutions to help make this information more useful to the casual reader. The best solution would be to spell out the abbreviated word in the table header. I realize this might be a huge change for those who edit rugby articles and probably involves updating a template, but it is a change that would nevertheless improve access to your content. Another solution would be to provide a key above the table that specifies what each abbreviation (letter) stands for. This might be the easiest way to update existing articles, using copy and paste. I also encourage a thoughtful discussion within WikiProject Rugby union. Ultimately, this topic is larger than this one article and impacts many more editors and articles. The WikiProject is the best place to seek a solution. Rublamb (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the information conveyed by the letters "c" and "m" is useful, it is much simpler to read than to compare times and "guesstimate" which conversion corresponds to which try. But as is it is confusing to a reader (like me) that knows something about rugby but does not follow it (and WP's style) every day. It should be clear for an "outsider" what it means, so it needs some explainig to the uninitiated. I'd suggest a box explaining all the shorthands (including all those player positions, FB, RW, OC, ... which I know what it is but a casual reader would not). Probably at the bottom, so not to intrude on most readers who do not need it, with a link near the top, so that casual readers can find it easily. At least, link the first occurrence, though I don't like that kind of "explanation" (because it breaks the flow of reading, and does not work well on print). Nabla (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, declined kicks are no problem, just use 'd'... If you find that confusing, there is your proove that 'c' ad 'm' also needs explainig. - Nabla (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was this ever concluded? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like it. – PeeJay 10:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do find the letters confusing, so where can this go to be resolved and hopefully get rid of the confusion. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to post this to the WikiProject Rugby group, as it impacts many articles. Rublamb (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are they still confusing once they’ve been explained? Surely you don’t come back to articles having forgotten what the letters mean? – PeeJay 00:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are and I don't see the benefit of them, it is one of those 'in the know' and 'prior knowledge' things where a barrier to understanding is created without any reason for its creation. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already clearly explained earlier in this discussion that I'm against the use of the letters "c" and "m" and why. Most people seemed to agree, but due to this dragging on and people coming in late, that seems lost on some people. Not sure why we should start the discussion all over again. Where the discussion basically becomes blurry is about recording, or not, of a missed kick. Some people seem to think there are no sources for missed kicks, but that's only because they make use of a small number of sources or just look at summaries. There are, however, plenty of sources that record them, so it's pretty easy to also record missed kicks. I don't really think there's a need to record the minute these kicks were missed. Ruggalicious (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that was the debate. Where did you get that idea from? – PeeJay 12:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the above discussion it seems pretty clear that the consensus is the letters are confusing, see MOS:ABBRas well which is referenced above. The only point of issue was if missed kicks should be included, which seems to hinge on sourcing, which from the discussion is widely available, particularly as stats for games will list how many kicks a player has had, and how many have been made. The 2 out of 5 kicks made stats. I agree with Ruggalicious, this has reached a clear consensus, if not unanimity, it just needs to be implemented. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I thought @Ruggalicious was querying the recording of missed conversions, not all missed kicks. I agree we shouldn't be limiting which sources we use, but let's not forget that rugby has been played since the 19th century, at which point limited records were kept. I would say until about the mid-1990s, you'd be hard pressed to find reliable sources for the precise number of missed kicks in any given match. – PeeJay 18:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is like saying never include penalty shoot outs in football because the records don't exist. Where the records exist include them where records don't exist include a note saying so in the body of the text if really necessary. History is not a barrier to progress. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say we should never include missed kicks, but I would say it shouldn't be mandatory. Where records are incomplete, you definitely shouldn't say Kicker X made 2/3 kicks, since the reports may not make mention of all the misses. – PeeJay 19:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that agreement is reached then. Remove the letters include kicks where possible. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winner of Pool D

[edit]

Basically, from what it looks like it is now impossible for England not to be top of Pool D, since they beat both Japan and Argentina. I feel like there should be a footnote somewhere to explain this, but I don't know where the best place would be. The tables themselves have formatting I don't understand. And putting the footnote in the knockout section seems wrong to me.

What do you all think? Gerkuman (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see "Pool Tables" above. If that problem were fixed then actual implications could be added as the results became available. S C Cheese (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd - as far as I can see Gerkuman is correct but not even World Rugby on the RWC app/website have England down as Pool winners despite, AFAICS, they cannot be caught under the tiebreaker rules.
All I want to do is fill my wallchart in! 86.7.8.185 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In bool B South Africa have already qualified for the quarterfinals

[edit]

The outcome of this pool depends on one remaining game between Scotland and Ireland on 7 October. If Ireland lose without a bonus they will be eliminated, Scotland will finish second and South Africa first. If Ireland lose with a bonus (a loss of 7 points or fewer) and Scotland win with a bonus, points differences apply. But then the current points differences can change by at most 7, which still levaes South africa and Ireland in the top two positions. In all other scenarios, Scotland is eliminated.

I tried to enter this info with a (Q) in the table for South Africa, but I can't figure out how to edit that table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropeneur (talk • contribs) 06:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Entropeneur At the time of writing, prior to the Ireland-Scotland match, South Africa are *not* mathematically certain to qualify. You have overlooked the possibility that Ireland could get a bonus point for scoring 4 tries. If Scotland win 49-28, for example, with Ireland scoring 4 tries, South Africa will be eliminated. Unlikely, but not impossible. 2A02:587:DE04:2700:88A3:457A:C771:1B0C (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You are right. Entropeneur (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:2023_Rugby_World_Cup_Pool_B --MrStoofer (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three-way ties

[edit]

(please excuse me if I've made a few mistakes, I can read English but I still have difficulty expressing myself; some sentences have been translated from French into English by the deepl.dom website)

As for the three-way tie, I read everything and its opposite, and the World Rugby rules are not very clear.
For the final round, 4 three-way ties are possible:

  • Pool A: France New Zealand Italy 15 pts or 14 pts.
  • Pool A: New Zealand Italy Uruguay 10 pts. (unrealistic victory for Uruguay by a margin of 80+)
  • Pool B: Ireland South Africa Scotland 15 pts.
  • Pool D: Argentina Japan Samoa 11 pts. (unlikely victory for Samoa by a margin of 29+ and drawn match without bonus for Argentina and Japan)

According to the sites and interpretations of the rules, I have found 3 cases:

  • Case 1: If there is a three-way tie, we look only at the difference between points scored for and points scored against in all its pool matches.
  • Case 2: We look at the difference in scores only if Team A beat Team B, Team B beat Team C, Team C beat Team A, or three drawn matches.
  • Case 3: We imagine a mini-tournament between the teams concerned, as if the matches against the other two teams had not taken place.

In the first case, Samoa could qualify. In the other two, they are eliminated because they lost to Argentina and Japan.
In the first two cases, France are eliminated because New Zealand have the better difference points and Italy beat France. But in the third case, France finished first with 6 pts (4 against New Zealand and 2 against Italy), New Zealand 5 pts and Italy 5 pts, but New Zealand was second because they beat Italy.
I know this isn't a discussion forum, but I want to point out absurd situations. If Italy beat France by a score of 13/12, for example, they qualify. But if Italy had put up a better fight against New Zealand, conceding fewer than 4 tries, 13/12 would not be enough. If Ireland score 4 tries or more, and Scotland score 4 tries or more, and Scotland lead by 19 points, Ireland are out if they defend well and in if they let Scotland score. It's completely against the spirit of the sport.
Back on topic, is anyone better informed than me? Johan64 (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think all we can do is rely on World Rugby and the Rugby World Cup to report the situation for us. We don't need to add qualification scenarios here, so it's all irrelevant until the two qualifiers from each pool are decided. Luckily, that will happen by the end of next weekend. – PeeJay 12:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And fortunately, here's a Rugby World Cup article detailing the permutations: https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/2023/news/873570/rugby-world-cup-2023-pool-permutations – PeeJay 13:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. At least we know.
Nevertheless, it confirms the aberrations I was talking about: Italy did well to concede more than four tries against New Zealand and there's a case where Ireland will better let Scotland score. I wonder if World Rugby is aware of this and if they're going to change it for 2027. Johan64 (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"France 2023 (Rugby event)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect France 2023 (Rugby event) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24 § France 2023 (Rugby event) until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Rugby_World_Cup&oldid=1225679482"