Living in Wales has led me “discover” the sport of rugby union. As Wales’ national sport you can find it on television often and whenever the national team plays you can listen to the commentary in either Welsh or English. With a lack of baseball, basketball, or (American) football, it is the one sport and team I can rally around with my neighbors and co-workers.
2011 has brought the quadrennial event of the Rugby World Cup. Now that the pool stages are done and the quarterfinals about to begin, I have become more uneasy by the lack of sportsmanship I perceive in the tournament both by the various players, teams, and the IRB. I will forgo discussing the various sportsmanship issues on both the player level (eye gouging) and team representative level (ball switching), there are always bad apples in every sport. Instead I will focus on the greater issue of team sportsmanship and the failure of the IRB to promote an opportunity for all nations to compete equally.
The World Cup (soccer/football) has groups of four. Each pair of teams in each group either will play simultaneously or consecutively with no precedence in the order of the play. The RWC has five teams in each of the four groups meaning that one of the teams in the group has a “bye” during the round robin group phase. This in itself leads to one team sometimes having played one more game than their opponent. In a full contact game like rugby, this can lead to an advantage by 1) advance scouting, 2) less likelihood of injured players, and 3) a team being generally “fresher” than an opponent. I will not quibble about an extra 12 or 24 hours, but, for example, New Zealand this year had 7, 8, and 8 days between matches. Samoa, on the other hand, had 4, 7, and 5 days between matches, and the USA had to play twice on three days rest. This unbalanced schedule did not go unnoticed.
The IRB and RWC2011 intentionally scheduled the “better” teams with more breaks between matches. This approach contributes to a self-fulfilling prophecy of the self anointed best teams advancing to the next round. No, I don’t think a balanced schedule would have propelled my Eagles to a quarterfinal berth, but if the bias is built into the schedule how can you say that the tournament is designed fairly? No one is complaining about the seeding system, just that once the field is set, equality should ensure a legitimate winner. Perhaps RWC2015 could learn from some of the suggestions floating around the internet (like here, here, and here).
Unlike every other sport I have followed, the RWC does not reward points for simply winning (or drawing), rather, the nature of the win or loss and determine the outcome. In the RWC you can get a bonus point for either scoring four or more tries or a bonus point for losing by seven points or less. While I can understand wanting to reward teams for losing “close” and, perhaps, adding excitement to the end of a match as one or both teams try for a bonus point, the concept of bonus points does not sit well with me. Why do we play the game? To win the game. Head to head competitions, played in variable conditions and in various venues, allows too much chance to determine bonus points. A game in heavy fog, pouring rain, freezing cold, all affect the final scores of the game, usually offensively more than defensively. A win is a win, a loss is a loss, why the need for bonus points? (Aside: NHL, don’t think I am not on to you either!)
While my first two criticisms have been directed at the format and structure of the RWC, the last two things I want to bring up relate to team behavior. Both comments relate to things I have seen by multiple teams so I am not trying to signal anyone out. First, if you accept the bonus point system then I can understand a team well on its way to victory to continue pursuing its fourth try of the game. What I don’t understand without the tag of poor sportsmanship being applied is the continued drive to score after both the bonus point is assured and time has expired (see New Zealand v. Japan, and Wales v. Fiji). The game is won, no need to humiliate your opponent further nor risk injury to your team. Apparently I am not the only one who has encountered this.
Finally, I am going to wade into a highly charged debate over the haka. I will not, however, go into the political correctness of whether or not the haka is offensive to Maori (or equivalent dance/chants of the other South Pacific island nations). I will address the use of the haka in light of sportsmanship. For those unfamiliar with the haka, it is a rhythmic dance/chant performed by the New Zealand rugby team just before kickoff. It typically involves both teams lined up facing each other with the All Blacks performing the dance in front of the opposing team. According to the all-knowing wikipedia, it has been a part of the All Blacks rugby team since 1906.
Many sports teams have a moment before games where they huddle/dance/chant/sing, but these are typically done either in the locker room before coming on to the field or in a team circle without regard to the other team. Also, I can understand/appreciate the singing of anthems or traditional team entrances put on by the home team. These are all “pre-game” and are generally reserved for home fields. They don’t apply to visiting teams nor national teams at international competitions (NZ performs a haka at both international competitions and as a visiting team), with the obvious exception of the national anthems. Furthermore, there should be no pump up measures directly toward the other team.
I would go as far to say that should the haka be performed by the players toward the audience to get them fired up, I would have no problem with that. But sanctioning the haka and forcing the other team to just stand there is a bit too far. If the haka is allowed to go on, the other team should be allowed to ignore it, stare it down, turn their backs, do their own dance in return. The Australian women’s team was even fined for moving too close to the haka once. To add insult to injury, Kiwis have felt disrespected if their opponents would rather not be disrespected themselves. And I didn’t even touch on the throat slitting.
As the RWC heads to the knockout rounds, I will watch the games but I will feel a little less engaged and may cheer a little less than I would have only a few weeks ago. I would like to players to respect the game and each other a little bit more. Who knows? It may allow the game to grow.
