Talk:2011 Rugby World Cup/Archive 1

Archive 1

Vote tally

This tally makes no sense. It shows a seven-all tie in the first round, which certainly wasn't the case (South Africa had to have less than the others, or there would have been a second ballot without elimination), and it disagrees with the only linked source still available (The New Zealand Herald). Can we get a citation, or an explanation by whomever wrote it the first time? 210.55.146.221 10:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2011nzl225.gif

Image:2011nzl225.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ranking going into draw

It matters not one jot, but Wales are ranked above England going into the draw. The bands are listed here [1] The IRB's site does list the ranking on its front page with England higher, but those are the ranks at 24 November, not after 29 November. Wales went on to defeat Australia, and England lost to New Zealand. But for one soft try and one knock on Wales would have got the 1.5 times bonus for a >14 point win and would have gone fourth. Stevebritgimp (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Samoa

Seriously - we all know that Samoa will be Oceania 1. Can we just put it in already!202.67.88.12 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No. There hasn't been a single game played in the Oceania qualifying tournament, so to put Samoa in as Oceania 1 is pure crystal-balling. – PeeJay 09:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There is more chance of a rugby ball coming out of my arse tonight than of Samoa not qualifying for this tournament. 202.67.78.8 (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Allthough you could have put slightly more eloquently I have to agree that there is very limited probability that Samoa won't qualify. What you could do is find a source pointing this out and mention in the article that Samoa are almost universaly expected to qualify. 130.56.71.132 (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is extremely likely that Samoa will qualify for the tournament, but until they have actually won the matches they need to win, we cannot speculate. – PeeJay 09:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of this, does anyone know when the Oceania qualifying will take place? The Oceania site doesn't say anything yet.Alanmjohnson (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad we decided to be addicted to semantics and delay on that one... guess what - Samoa qualified! Why we didn't put that in 6 months ago is beyond me! 121.218.7.101 (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's beyond you, then you really should try reading WP:CRYSTAL. Samoa hadn't qualified for the World Cup six months ago, they only qualified in the last few weeks. – PeeJay 08:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Irish Flag?

Seems to be missing? Perhaps due to a dispute over using the tricolour? If so, can we have the IRFU flag>. Rugbymadnut (talk) 14:18, 06 July 2009 (UTC)

That particular issue has been talked to death. Sorry, not sure where (someone help on that?). The upshot is that the tricolor is inappropriate in that it is the flag of the Republic of Ireland and the Ireland team represents all of Ireland. The Shamrock flag or a (non-official) 4-Province flag would run afoul of a Wikipedia guideline against the use of a flag (where none exists) solely for the sake of having one. The IRFU flag, which everyone seems to agree is most appropriate, is unavailable due to copyright issues. Obviously there is a lot more to these discussions than I have expressed here, but that's it in a nutshell. But for the time being, having no flag seems to be the only viable alternative, unfortunately.Alanmjohnson (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah very good... I thought it had just gone walkies. Perhaps I'll approach the IRFU? all you can do is ask .Rugbymadnut (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the IRFU have already been approached, and since Wikipedia requires that they release the logo for use for any purpose (not just on Wikipedia), they were unsurprisingly reluctant. It's a shit scenario, but what can you do? – PeeJay 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't we use the 4-province flag? What wikipedia guideline does this fall afoul of? Little Professor (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Irish rugby team doesn't compete under the four-province flag means that the use of that flag would count as creating an image to fill a perceived need for one, effectively a violation of WP:OR. – PeeJay 23:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we please have the shamrock flag back? The absence of a flag is ridiculous. There was clear consensus for its use following extensive discussions in the past. Someone has removed all uses of it citing a 'pedantic' (their own word) application of WP:OR preventing us from 'inventing' a new flag in such situations. Surely this is a candidate for WP:IGNORE if ever there was one. The use of the shamrock flag satisfies the north/south controversy, is readily identifiable as an Irish symbol, and is clearly an improvement to wikipedia from the current status quo of blank squares next to every mention of the Irish team. As WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY states, rules are not the purpose of the community, but rather a documentation of existing consensus. We have a consensus that in this individual situation, the use of the shamrock flag is both justified and the least-worst option. It seems silly to prevent the use of this 22px icon of an ensign simply due to the rigid application of WP:OR, when the OR policy itself is currently locked due to disputes over its wording and application Little Professor (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively  :) Little Professor (talk) Little Professor (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How about the Harp flag?

Romania

The main article says that 19 teams have qualified and then lists the 19, HOWEVER, Romania (which was not listed as one of the 19), is shown in one of the groups as a team in the field of 20. Have they or have they not qualified? Either the list of qualified teams need to be updated to include Romania or Romania needs to be removed from the groups and schedule. TheNextSocrates (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Kick-off times

Kick-off times can be found at http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/RUgbyWorldCupSchedule.pdf. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Pools

Does anybody actually know that they're the groups the non-seeded teams are going in, or is it just a guess? I've heard that New Zealand (5th seed) with be in (4th seed) France's pool, 6th (Australia) with 3rd (Argentina), 7th with 2nd and 8th with 1st (South Africa) Mjefm (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the draw for the pools will be ramdomised and based on the IRB rankings of qualified countries in November 2008. Theby the countries ranked 1 to 4 will be drawn to fill the first place in the pools, then those ranked 5 to 8 will be drawn to fill the second slot, and then 9 to 12. What happens if a team that has not yet qualified but ranked in the top 12 in November is unclear. Perhaps the draw would be delayed until the top 12's placeholders in the rankings qualification are certain. As of today the highest ranked teams yet to qualify are Samoa 12th, Georgia 14th, and Canada 15th. As such it is a distinct possibility that an unqualified team will be in the top twelve come November. Thecrystalcicero (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of pools, on what basis are the teams listed in the pools? Wouldn't alphabetical be the most sensible way (at least for those teams already qualified)?76.175.153.230 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

See here. Thanks. – PeeJay 17:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are the teams in the order they are? I agree they are the likely positions, but that doesn't make them the actual positions until the games are played. Upsets may happen... Argentina looks to be the dark horse.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The current order is based on the seedings with which the draw was made... teams seeded 1-4 are first, 5-8 second, etc. (on the rankings in which seeding was based, not current ones). 190.18.52.179 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Pool articles

Shouldn't we have articles for individual pools like we had for 2007 right about now or should we leave it for later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.8.48 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Broadcasting rights

The official Rugby World Cup website has a comprehensive list of RWC broadcasters Here

If anyone has the free time, please go ahead and add this information to the broadcasting section. Perhaps copy the FIFA WC format and create a specific page just for broadcasting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.244.222 (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

NZ vs Ton-last con

Wikipedia says the last con was scored by slade while espnscrum commentary says its piri weepu-which is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.12.48 (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Rugby World Cup website said it was Slade when I made the original edit. It may have changed since then, but AFAIK it was Slade. – PeeJay 23:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

List of television broadcasters

Out of curiosity, do we really need the, (incomplete), list of television broadcasters that will show the games, how does it improve the article?
The list is almost certainly incomplete and probably inaccurate. FFMG (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the list of broadcaster as Wikipedia isn't a list of links, and I fail to see the encyclopedic benefit of trying to list every country that has a TV station that may show some rugby, and as mentioned above it will certainly be incorrect and incomplete, though I will try include the link from the section above which would cover this point as a reliable source. Cheers ^Khukri 12:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Match result

Understood that the match details are moved to respective group articles (although, it wouldn't have harm if it stayed here ☺ ), but at least show the winner in bold for easy understanding. Now the sections looks too flat.
Anish Viswa 05:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Tim Hayes

The Tim Hayes listed as an assistant referee is the wrong one - but there's a strange template used and it's not obvious how to fix this. Greenman (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Tiebreakers

Anyone know tbe tiebreakers for the pool stage? Nlsanand (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Now inserted, also used plain language as opposed to 2007 article, so that it looks cleaner and more concise. Nlsanand (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

New Colors

Good move on adding all the new colors to indicate the various possibilities. I do believe that once pool play ends, we should simply reduce it to green for those eight who advance, yellow for the four who qualify for 2015, and white for the remaining eight, but in the meantime, I like what was done.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Also, I templated it, to make it easier, and also inserted it into the group stages, so the colours have context. Nlsanand (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

One problem at the moment Japan is colored with the light blue that means they have qualified for the quarters and the '15 tourney. I won't attempt to fix it cause I'd likely mess the whole table up so my thanks in advance to anyone who can correct this. MarnetteD | Talk 21:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If a team has qualified for the quarters (and thus also 2015) they will be green. Light blue means that they can not qualify for the quarters, but that they can still qualify for 2015. They can finish 3, 4, or 5. My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it was simply in the wrong place so my thanks to whoever moved the color from Japan to New Zealand. On the other hand, I echo the person who made this post on the template talk page Template talk:2011 Rugby World Cup Quarter Final Qualifiers. The colors for lines two and four (some kind of grayish, slate-like blue) are so close to each other that there is no difference when I view the table and I can add that I can see no green (Ireland's flag is green - Italy's flag has green in it) on line one whatsoever, it is more of a robins egg blue. But it is not important what that color is line one being "?", line three being white and five pink are easy to distinguish. I would suggest changing lines two and four to a more varied color scheme. Hope everyone is enjoying the tourney and I wish that US TV was showing more games live. Did anyone see the fans dressed as Wally/Waldo (as in Where's) at the US v Russia game? Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

For got to mention you've got a wonderfully fun user name. I suspect that a lot more food was consumed at your dinner than in the film. Did you play the rhyming game with each course? MarnetteD | Talk 16:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

+1 dead Sicilian. Thanks a million. (For noticing). I agree that lines two and four are too close. In fact, for some reason I couldn't get it to show the blue used in the template, so I used a more distinct and brighter blue, but a different scheme would be an improvement.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

nobody qualified for the QFs yet

dude, nobody qualified for the qfs or the 2015 RWC or was eliminated for that matter, stop adding these colour shades. they dont help explain anyding they just create confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.12.220 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

my vote exactly!! it took me a while to see that it was in alphabetical order and not that anyone was or was not knocked out! I recognize that eventually there will be a need for the coloring, and at that time it should be added, but lets say we are into September and someone comes in and sees that their team in knocked out?!? they werent knocked out, but unless they knew that the shading was there from a year before and means nothing they will not understand why it is that way. I say, make it white and then later change it when someone actually wins/gets knocked out!!!--Billy Nair (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that even as it is, the teams aren't alphabetised - they're done (it would seem) on what someone thinks the likely outcome is (hence New Zealand being above France, and England being above Argentina). So, yeah, the colour bands create confusion, but so does the lack of alphabetisation. iBru (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever removed the colors! --Billy Nair (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

For your information i was the one who added the colours you meant to add the colours before the tournament has started. Plus IRB states that all the pools should be in Alphabetical order see at www.rugbyworldcup.com I know more about 2011 Rugby World Cup than you's do i live in New Zealand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byroniscool (talk • contribs) 07:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

we have talked abut this. now remove the colors. i would do it myself but i dunno how to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.22.204 (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Have New Zealand finished top of the table already? They've been put added to the knockout stage as pool winners. Aren't France within 5 points? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.81.44 (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Good question. France could come even with NZ with 15 points. However, no other team could catch NZ (Canada's potential maximum is 14, Tonga's is 10, and Japan's is 5). So, should France and New Zealand both finish even on 15, then we'd have to go to tie-breakers. The first tie-breaker is if two teams are tied, the team that won the match between them is ranked higher. Thus NZ cannot be dislodged from the top of Pool A.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Argentina are one point behind Scotland in Pool 2. They should be EXPECTED to get through, but you can't make that assumption, can you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.65.236 (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No. No you can't. Can't assume (at least for Wikipedia) that the All Blacks will beat Canada either.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

2015 qualification

Hasn't Scotland already qualified having won their 2nd pool match against Georgia. I don't see how they can end up lower than 3rd in pool B. i'll admit, i always get confused when there is an odd number of teams in the pool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.31.46 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, England beats Scotland but loses all remaining matches and gets one bonus point somewhere in there. Scotland loses all remaining matches. Georgia and Romania get full points versus England. And then split 5-2 (full bonus points) the remaining matches. They end up all on 11. Nlsanand (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A late thanks,mate. i thiunk i get it a little now but my confusion is in no way over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.7.3 (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Scotland could still fall to fourth if Georgia score 10 points in their last two matches and don't allow Argentina a losing bonus point, and Scotland lose to England without a bonus point. This would lead to a three way tie which would be decided by points difference. Unlikely, but possible nonetheless Cactusrob (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

By my reckoning, South Africa (14 pts) have secured a 2015 place though, because it's no longer possible for the trio of Samoa (6 pts), Wales (5 pts) and Fiji (5pts) to all overtake them (since Fiji have to play both Samoa and Wales, and someone obviously needs to drop at least 2 points in both those games). There's simply no combination of results that puts South Africa 4th now. 82.9.193.213 (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That is correct.My Dinner With Andre The Giant (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It says Samoa Qlified for 2015 but Wales haven't , how exacty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.8.156 (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If Fiji defeat Wales by 61 points or more, they and Samoa will finish ahead of Wales, who will be 4th and will not qualify. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wales already has 4 tries and hence a BP, Samoa beat Fiji, so pool D is all over — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.26.231 (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Group stage arrangement of team names for fixtures question.

Just curious: how is it determined the order of team names for the fixtures? Is it that the favourite (highest seed) comes first? My team, England, is listed first for all their group games. I'm not much a follower of sport in general so I'd guess this is all done by traditions of old but I'd like to learn how it's done. --bodnotbod (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

the higher seeded team (when the groups were drawn) is the "home" team in each game. doesn't really matter to be honest as, aside from New Zealand, its a neutral game for everyone! Tastyniall (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, so it's as I suspected then. Thanks. You say it 'doesn't matter' but presumably we should display them as they appear in official sources, no? Assuming that there is a correct way to do it and that sources don't just display them however they prefer. --bodnotbod (talk)

Time Zones on Knockouts

Any particular reason they've been changed? I thought they're supposed to show local times. Stick (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Key to colours in pool tables as of 3 Oct

This has been through a few changes since my post above and I appreciate the work done. I do have a question about the way it reads today. There are now only two colours light blue {may not be the correct term) and white. The way it reads now is that all the teams in this tournament have qualified for the 2015 tourney. Is this correct? It it is do we need the table at all? Thanks ahead of time to anyone who can clear this up for me. MarnetteD | Talk 16:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There are three colours (perhaps it's a browser issue with you) - green, yellow and grey. Green indicates those countries who have qualified for the 2015 tournament as well as the quarter finals of this year's tournament. Yellow indicates those countries which failed to qualify for the quarter finals but who did qualify for the 2015 tournament. Grey indicates those countries which failed to qualify directly for either the 2015 tournament or this year's quarter finals. Hope that helps, ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 17:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update MacTire. I now know where my confusion came in. There are only two lines in the Template:2011 Rugby World Cup Quarter Final Qualifiers as it now stands. The green/light blue (cause it doesn't come close to the green of the Ireland flag) stands out. The yellow is almost the same as white and is barely visible. Currently there is no third line explaining the grey for the non qualifiers. It would be a help if slightly more vivid colours where used as in this earlier [2] version. If that does not work for everyone then could we at least have three lines of explanation in the template. BTW I use Mozzilla Firefox so I wont be the only reader experiencing this. Keep enjoying the tourney all as now things get really exciting. MarnetteD | Talk 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Scope and Value of "Criticism/Controversy" Section

For discussion:

I would like to suggest that the recent addition (and deletion and addition...) regarding the actions of some New Zealand fans, and the "possible" link to an event before the RWC, do not meet the criteria for inclusion. The actions mentioned (fans "claim" to have been spat on, a man "claims" his wife was "abused", people "claim" it is related to a single action in a game in August 2011) may not stand out enough to count as 'significant' when compared to notable actions by fans at other sporting events (riots, deaths, severe beatings).

Whether these claims are true or not, I am just suggesting that it is in the realm of the (sadly) 'normal' discourteous behaviour that occurs at sporting events, and is far from the level of interaction that would require special mention in the Wiki article.

In other words, taking some heat from the opposing fans is normal for amateur and professional sporting events worldwide, while proven acts of violence that go beyond the norm should be mentioned in the article.

If the standard is lowered, then every article about every sporting event should include a section with random newspaper quotes about the locals and/or opposing fans acting in a discourteous way. I agree that spitting (if it IS, in fact, happening) is extremely discourteous - but still does not stand the test of a significant item to note in the article.

I trust your responses will be based on the merit of the criteria for a Wiki article - let us leave the gamesmanship on the field of play (and in the stands with the unruly fans caught up in real time events).Jmg38 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with most your points, I think the key factor that we need to look at to decide whether or not to include this is coverage, and especially, scope of coverage. At the moment, I can find but one article on this "incident" coming from Australia. The coverage is certainly not wide-spread or in-depth. So at the moment I would vote that this section not be included. If we start to see much more in-depth continued coverage, and especially coverage from more than just Australia (as this is a worldwide event) then it may have to be reconsidered. Ravendrop 01:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Trivial, not unusual and a classic case of the media creating a Storm in a teacup. Not worth including unless it gets MUCH bigger. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not notable. If it escalates then it can be revisited. AIRcorn (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I had removed it for much the same reason as you all above, and Aircorn I see has re-removed it, thanks. It's not a controversy until it gets to IRB level or it's mentioned at government level, the rest is just nationalistic journalistic brou-haha that appeared in one paper.

On a side note, I have this page on my watch list and I'm seeing alot of IP vandalism edits and new editor vandalism though not yet of a problem level. If you wish the article temporarily protected, especially if we see a referee action that effects the outcome of a match, just leave me a message, I'm around a fair bit of the time. Regards ^Khukri 09:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

An interesting fact

Not sure if anyone has noticed, but for the first time in Rugby World Cup history, the way the teams have been placed at the knock-out stages; guarantees a final between Northern vs Southern hemispheres. The first half of the quarter-finals only has teams from the northern hemisphere, likewise for the second half of the quarter-finals with only has teams from the southern hemisphere. Not sure if it is worth noting this fact in the article itself. Wesley Mouse (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

While it is an interesting 'fun fact', I don't really think it should be included in this article. FFMG (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it can be included under conditions. Namely, that it be included in a write-up about the final (if one is created, especially if an article about the final itself is created (as seems to be planned)) and if it is mentioned by more than one news article about the final. Until then it remains a "fun fact" that shouldn't be included in the article. Ravendrop 05:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't find the references right now, but this north/south split has been mentioned in the UK press for several weeks now, especially in relationship to the possibility of France deliberately coming second in their pool in order to avoid the (supposedly stronger) southern hemisphere teams in the knockout stages. Murray Langton (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Trivial. Has no place in a serious encyclopedia which wiki purports to be. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to User:DerbyCountyinNZ; there is nothing in the Wiki guidelines that strictly states trivia is not permitted. Wikipedia's Handling Trivia guidance states that it can and cannot be used, depending on the type of trivial facts being mentioned into articles. As for sourcing, I can't find anything either. It was only by browsing through the previous RWC articles that I noticed this north/south split for the first time. Also this year's final will be the 6th time in 7 contests that it will be a north/south final. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The northern hemisphere/southern hemisphere divide is a significant factor in the politics of international rugby. It is fuelled by the Six Nations and Tri-Nations (soon to be Four Nations) competitions, plus resentment in southern rugby that the north has most of the money and most of the votes in the IRB executive. It is frequently referred to by journalists (eg Stephen Jones in the Times), and to rugby fans in their many blogs (the Rugby365 site asks users to choose where their allegiance lies before using the site). Such references often relate to claims of superiority of different styles of the game (forward-dominated in the northern hemisphere and 'the running game' in the southern hemisphere). Plenty of rugby fans have noticed that this is the first world cup in which the two halves of the knock-out stages have been completely divided between north and south, guaranteeing that that the two will not meet in the knockout games until the final. If you haven't found any references perhaps you need to keep looking -- here is one of many: http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-world-cup/north-vs-south-clashes-confirmed-4431109

The north-south divide in rugby is not trivial, and it would be informative to include it in this context. The idea of someone consulting a Wikipedia article on a sports event for a 'serious' purpose is something many might find amusing – many come here to check answers for pub trivia nights. Wesley Mouse's first instinct to suggest putting it in was I think the right one. Strayan (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right article to go into detail about the northern vs southern hemisphere politics. However a brief mention of the draw split (maybe in an introductory paragraph in the knock out section) would not go amiss. AIRcorn (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Morne Steyn top scorer

Has Morne Steyn scored 62 points as it says at the top of the article, or 53 as its says in the table at the bottom? Could somebody correct this? Mallard16 14:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallard16 (talk • contribs)