Talk:2015 Rugby World Cup – Americas qualification

Round 1A Standings[edit]

Do we actually know that a bonus point system was used? Is there an official source for that anywhere?My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda in CONSUR?[edit]

Not sure if I'm reading this right, but it looks from what's in the article as though Bermuda - if they beat Paraguay and Brazil - would compete in the South American tournament in 2013. Is that right? If so, can it really be considered a South American Rugby Championship if Bermuda's involved? Seems to me that would be like having Tunisia or Morocco taking part in the European championship... Grutness...wha? 15:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem: the IRB is a useless organization that cares so little about their own world cup that they cannot communicate the details of their senseless qualification system. For God's sake, the official RWC site showed Costa Rica competing in Consur B practically until the eve of that tournament, and Ivory Coast was eliminated despite winning all of their games. So...what I've been able to piece together from various sites is this:

a Bermuda victory will mean that Brazil will face Bermuda for RWC qualifying and Paraguay for Consur promotion/relegation. Should Bermuda win that match, then the only 2013 Consur A match that will play a role in qualifying will be Uruguay-Chile, with each of them playing Bermuda separately.
Should Bermuda beat Paraguay but lose to Brazil, followed by Paraguay beating Brazil, then all three teams will be eliminated and the Uruguay-Chile match in the 2013 Consur will be the only remaining match to determine who plays the USA-Canada loser.
If Paraguay beats Bermuda, then the Paraguay-Brazil match will be for RWC qualifying and for promotion/relegation.
- However...even then the only matches in the 2013 Consur A that will count towards qualifying will be Uruguay-Chile and Uruguay-Paraguay/Brazil. Apparently Chile will have the right to host Paraguay/Brazil, so that match would happen twice, once for Consur and once more in Chile for qualification.

But here's the thing - I don't know if this is totally true either. The Consur website says one thing, Uruguay's site adds more information, and the official RWC site says something else altogether. A lot of this I've tried to piece together from the message boards on FIRA's website (FIRA being the governing body for most European rugby).

However, that's all so complicated (and the prospect of Bermuda winning on Saturday so remote) that I don't know if it's worth a major overhaul of the page until the details are more concrete.My Dinner With Andre The Giant

Confusing... thanks for trying to piece this together! Grutness...wha? 23:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South American, 2013[edit]

According to the official Rugby World Cup website, this leg of qualifying only involves three teams (Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay) and does not include Argentina. The fact that the three RWC qualifying matches will also be part of the Consur championship (which does involve Argentina) is coincidental.

For example, should Uruguay draw with Chile but beat Argentina, Uruguay would be Consur champions and the Consur table would look like this:

Team	Played	Won	Drawn	Lost
Uruguay	3	2	1	0
Argentina	3	2	0	1
Chile	3	1	1	1
Brazil	3	0	0	3

On the other hand, the RWC table would be:

Team	Played	Won	Drawn	Lost
Uruguay	2	1	1	0
Chile	2	1	1	0
Brazil	2	0	0	2

In this case, the team that advances would not necessarily be Uruguay (on the strength of beating Argentina), but would come down to which of Uruguay or Chile had the bigger points difference against Brazil. As such, Argentina's games are irrelevant to RWC qualifying, and there should not be any reference to them on this page or in the table. My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canada vs USA Home & Away Tiebreakers[edit]

Does anyone know what happens if the US wins one game, and Canada wins the other? I assume it would go to point difference, but then what if it's the same point difference, etc... I really hate two-game series. Grande (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most tries? Away points? Away tries? Higher IRB rank? Do you honestly think the IRB has actually figured that out yet?My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? I'm an optimist. Grande (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings[edit]

@Rugby.change: I noticed you removed the USA/Uruguay team rankings. I am curious as to why. Also, do you know offhand whether the wikiproject rugby union has any guidance on when to include rankings or not? I've seen the rankings on some pages but not others, but I'm not clear on why some pages have them and others don't. Barryjjoyce (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Barryjjoyce: Ranking are not really relevant to the Rugby World Cup Qualification process, in particular that fixture. Normally the ranking is relevant to determine who is the home team in a match. For example, the Round 1 Final, where it states "Paraguay were the home team as they were the higher ranked team at 39 to Bermuda's 49". As for the Uruguay-United States match, it is a two legged home and away match, rankings does not effect who is home.

So to answer your question when to use them. If the home was determined by who the higher ranking team is, then mention the ranking. If not, don't use them. Rugby.change (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rugby.change: Thanks for explaining your views. I agree the rankings are relevant when they impact the venue. You assert they are otherwise irrelevant — can you explain why you think that? I take it your assertion that the rankings are otherwise irrelevant is based on your personal opinion, and not based on a consensus formed by wikiproject rugby union members, but please correct me if I am wrong. There are articles published by reliable sources that mention the rankings — Planet Rugby, and the IRB — which suggests that they are relevant. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Barryjjoyce: The rankings are still relevant outside of impact of venue. But they just don't need to be noted. If the pre-match ranking was placed on every single test match, it would start to look very messy in terms of numbers all over the article, if you know what I mean. Rugby.change (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2015 Rugby World Cup – Americas qualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2015 Rugby World Cup – Americas qualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on 2015 Rugby World Cup – Americas qualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]