UKC

It's starting to rival basketball as the most boring and pointless of human endeavours.

It's either a load of blokes collapsing on the ground together 4 times in a row for no discernible reason, bashing into each other from a yard apart(which would be entertaining if they wore saucepans on their heads), or kicking the ball back and forward to each other. Add in impenetrable rules, which I'm convinced no-one understands, and you have really have a crock of shite. Actually, I've just worked-out that the scrum is to determine which side should get a penalty, which I suppose is quicker than arm-wrestling.

On the plus side, I suppose it's good if you like looking at beefy blokes in tight shorts, and the comedy beards are worth 5 minutes' viewing time. And you do get to see them do that pre-kicking stance that looks like a greyhound having a shit, which is quite funny.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I take it you missed the Wales/Ireland match earlier then?!

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Ironically, three out of four halves played today were scintillating. I'm sorry you couldn't follow it, but it's neither rugby' s problem nor loss.

And yes, it's very, very gay. Gay as a gay thing's effeminate boyfriend. All lovely bum fun and lots of peeking in the showers. Plus, some players are gay too. Clearly, this is worthy of comment, given that we're in the 1950s and referring to someone as gay is an acceptable pejorative term.

I'll give you the pre-kicking stance, mind.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

We all get an opinion I guess.

I would assume that a lot of people would disagree with you.

If you can't see the worth of the sport than you are completely missing the point.

I'm guessing you are a troll. If you are not, then I'm glad that I don't have to spend any time listening to you in person.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I was about to post similar, but you captured my feelings perfectly.
What a crock of shite!
Do they make the rules up as they go along? Why do they run into each other then lie on the floor?
Why not make the game skillful with a round ball, and dribble around each other?
Now there's an idea

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

youtube.com/watch?v=EG8oMnsmQQM&

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Bo11ocks.

In reply to gribble:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/sixnations/114681...

He seems to be somewhat in agreement, and he played a bit.

In reply to Martin not maisie:


Broken clock and all that...


I never mentioned it being gay. Have you got something you need to get off your chest?

In reply to Dave the Rave:





Brilliant!

Then we could segregate the supporters and instead of beers and banter during the game we could have fights instead and not let people on the train afterwards because they are a different colour.

Oh and we could surround the ref when someone falls over for no apparent reason and demand a red card.

Only one sort of dribbling that the average footballer is good at.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Are you a closet Scot by any chance?

In reply to coinneach:

Thanks

This is exactly what supporters of both Wales and England RUFC said after the last match.
'I will never go to a rugby match with my child again, the behaviour of the fans was disgraceful. Drunks everywhere and a menacing atmosphere. My child was scared for her life.'




Or as a welsh player did today, feign a head injury to run the clock down.


Or Gavin Henson

In reply to coinneach:

You forgot pretending you've been shot in the knee when another player comes within 3m of your personal space in the hope that the referee was checking his watch or texting his wife in order to gain a totally unsporting advantage. And a possible lawduit for messing up a very expensive and elaborate haircut.

And turning city centres into no-go areas afterwards.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I firmly believe you are entitled to your opinion. An by right so am.
But yours is the wrong one. Personally I think football is a bunch of overpaid pretty boys who fall over if they think they can get away with it.
Should put you in the centre of a scrum an see how long you last.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Agreed. A very boring game that is watched and played mostly by toffs.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

An enlightened view point. Doncaster, you say...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

You're so right! If something is a bit complicated to understand let's just ban it.

OK here's another perspective. Rugby is a game about physical aggression, bodily contact and skill. And awesome power and physical effort. The rules have evolved to retain and enhance all the positive aspects - so strong, skilful teams win, basically - while attempting to minimise the very real dangers inherent in 30 large blokes running at each other. That's what the ref is constantly monitoring and advising the captains about as the matches progress.

The basics aren't hard to understand. You can't pass the ball forward, and when you are tackled and go to ground you have to release the ball to you colleagues - and be allowed to do so. You can't obstruct players who don't have the ball. You can't tackle in a way that is dangerous, e.g. grabbing someone round the neck. Minor infractions are punished by either awarding penalties or scrums. How hard is that to understand?

In reply to Cerris90:



I agree, although rugby isn't without it's cheating scandals. It doesn't alter the fact that football is much more skilful, more entertaining and more of a spectacle. Global appeal bears that out.


About the 2 seconds that any scrum lasts before it collapses. It's not the point though is it?

I don't doubt that the players are awesome physical specimens; but it's the game, not the players that are the problem.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


Played by toffs? Better ban it then.

In reply to Indy:

Half Scottish

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Here's a better one.

Keep the egg shaped ball, stop all that lying about on the floor and take a couple of players out of each team. Should speed things up a bit.

We all like are own sports outside climbing. So respect your opinion. It's the wrong one. But il carry on watching the game of gentlemen played by thugs.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The basics aren't the problem though, it's all the rest. And they change every 5 minutes.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Meh. It's like cricket, bouldering or whatever. If someone needs to explain it to you, you probably won't understand.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Just got back from the pub where we watched the England: Scotland game. Twice someone tried to turn it over to the football but things were soon put right. Good game, could have gone either way, enjoyed it. Er, that's it really...now where was I...

In reply to Pekkie:


However. Burnley. Blimey.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

So it's just like every other sport then! It does make me laugh when fans of one sport deride another sport as boring and pointless. It's like religions squabbling over which one of them is true.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I knew it!!!

Anyway, I'm sure another wooden spoon will come in handy.

In reply to Cerris90:

And of football is a game for gentlemen played by thugs.....

Remember, the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton!! .....discuss

Tom V -- you're reference to League didn't go unnoticed! ....room for both codes in my book.

In reply to Tom Valentine:



Yes. They could call it Rugby League? A proper game

In reply to Indy:



I'll use it for a bit of shit stirring...

In reply to Dave the Rave:


Allright to practice D, but really you might as well play touch.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Yeah, you did. And you know you did. All that talk about tight shorts and beefy men: not-so-subtle innuendo and a suggestion that the sport can be reduced to voyeuristic homo-eroticism.

Just to be clear, I'm not picking you up on it in defence of rugby; I'm picking you up on it because it's tired, cliched and does you no credit at all. And no, I'm not gay, so I have nothing - to slot into your assumptions about homosexual men - to get off my chest. Woeful stuff.

Dislike rugby if you want - no issues there - but try to keep your head out of your arse, eh?

In reply to Martin not maisie:




You utter prick!

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Good for you, slugger. Your contributions to this thread are maturing with every post.

In reply to exiled_northerner:




Hmmm, The land of fags and bum banditary ...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

not bad opener but you returned to the thread to soon.
Perhaps a line on how superior American football is would have helped as well.
7.5

In reply to Martin not maisie:

Now my blood pressure has reduced somewhat, I will give you a more comprehensive reply, although seeing as you appear to think you know what I'm thinking, there hardly seems to be any point. Others may not know what I was thinking though.

When I wrote about one appeal of the game being watching beefy blokes in tight shorts, I was referring to women. At least 3 of my female friends have had serious relationships with rugby players; one of my best friends married one, and I've had many instances of women telling me, or discussing in my presence, how hot they find rugby players, so it's natural for me to consider the physical appeal of the players .

If a woman had started a thread about women's beach volleyball and stated that the only appeal of it was watching fit women in tiny bikinis, I don't think anyone would assume that it aimed at lesbianism, which is what you have done the other way around on this thread, in your typical "spoiling for an argument" manner, just like you did some some guy on a thread about the homeless a few months ago. I know you told me then how intelligent you were - maybe you need to entertain the notion that you're not quite as clever as you think you are.

I am pretty sure that what I've just written will make no difference to your opinion of your own correctness, but I'm not too fussed what you think. I am, however, bothered by what other people think.

In reply to dissonance:




Ha! I'll take 7.5. I was, of course, on the wind-up a bit, but with a basis in my perception of the truth, and it's a view shared by some within the game, like Austin Healey in the article I linked to above. I do actually enjoy rugby, and have admiration for the physical attributes of the players, but it really does have issues that affect its appeal. The scrum, for example. What's the point of it really? They don't feed the ball straight and they constantly collapse.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Your initial post was entertaining and witty. It was obvious to me you were referring to women in your post. My guess is that as far as you are concerned if some gay men watched rugby for homoerotic reasons that would be fine with you too, it's just not what you were talking about. There are indeed people on here spoiling for a fight which makes it rather off-putting to post.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I played for years, enjoyed it lots until injury stopped me playing. Yes it is a dull game to watch, but so it climbing

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Very well said. My sentiments entirely.

May I also add that going to an international match is a wonderful experience, with great camaraderie and banter and a carnival atmosphere.

M

In reply to Dr.S at work:

You seem to be implying that league is less physical. Having played neither, I wouldn't really know.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It's not Rugby it's self that's boring. It's the rules that make it that way. The rules are regularly changed to make Rugby "Better"

If proper rucking was still allowed, there wouldn't be as many penalties at the breakdown. (The offending player would certainly get out of the way sharpish) The law was changed IMO to make the game more appealing to those people who thought rucking someone out of the way with their feet, was bad for the image of the game. I would guess most forwards would like to see it re-instated.

As for the scrum constantly collapsing. The front row are simply too tall nowadays. Years ago the old nuggety, squat, barrel chested prop had the attributes to resist folding from the waist. The 6'4" body builder physique props of today centres of gravity are to high, so they fold in from their waist, and all this keeping your shoulders above the hips sh*t. Just means their feet slip backwards, so resulting in another scrum as well.

Not sure how the law makers can/will/want to change the scrum to make that part of the game quicker.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Well, then, I apologise sincerely for my comments and retract them.

Although I think you flatter yourself somewhat that I'd bother fighting with you on the internet - if the weight of your argument is measured in phrases like 'you utter prick', then I'm not inclined to make the effort in any case. Equally, denigrating something by admitting at the start that it's too difficult for you to understand hardly elevates your standard of contribution, or invites reasonable debate.

As to the other bloke and his moronic outpouring about the homeless, I think I'm good on that one - and had it confirmed by people who actually know him. Perhaps if you actually look at the - admittedly quite a few - occasions I get into these spats, you'd see that they're rarely because someone is attacking me, but generally in defence of individuals either not present or not able to challenge some of the grubbier stuff that gets posted on here. 'See something, say something' isn't popular, but I'm quite comfy with it: pompous, moi?

But if you say that you weren't indulging in some lazy homophobia, I'll believe you and apologise without qualification.

So yes, I say I'm clever. I also say that I'm incredibly good looking and good at fighting, but you'd have to talk to people who know me to understand.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


I think the 'tick rugby' thing comes from league gaming halting after a tackle. The actual tackles in league are harder IMO, it's more physical than union in that respect, but less so in others.

There's pros and cons, league is more flowing for spectators, you don't get the mess you often see after a union tackle, and the resultant stoppages. League can seem a bit 'one dimension' though.

RU in NZ seems to have the 'spark' of league, so I'm not convinced Unions problems are to do with the rules.

In reply to Martin not maisie: Mmmm.... I think your original 'tackle' was 'too high'. His op was obviously a bit of a wind up to get the chat started, no need to take offence.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

No, league is very physical - slightly different in some ways to Union in terms of the type of physicality for some players.

A lot of union sides play league in training as it's very good for honing defender drilling - tackle, get into position, tackle, get into position, etc etc. and it's relentless, so good for game conditioning as less stop - start than union.

'Touch' at most clubs I've played at tends to get pretty physical and result in more injuries than full contact training, which is a shame as it's a great game in its own right.

Since when has it become legal for teams to come in the side (not through the gate) and off their feet, subsequently preventing the defending team from challenging for the ball? Referees seem to have become so obsessed with 'tackler release' and 'hands off' at the ruck that they seem oblivious to all other offences! I think Barnes penalised Ireland once for this all game, where it was happening practically every ruck.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Our local club have a touch session that runs over the summer and is open to and attended by anyone.

Means that colts, U 12's, first team, girls and even oldies like me get to play together and keep fit ( or not, in my case)

Great fun though!

In reply to Martin not maisie:

Cheers, no worries. I really don't like getting in to spats like that. And I apologise for calling you a prick. I was too tired to respond in a more considered manner like I did this morning.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

It could well have changed now with union being professional, but in the early nineties for a few months I lived in Preston and trained for running 400m with a group coached by a guy who was the fitness coach for Wigan rugby league team. At that time Tuigamala (sp?) had moved there from Union and needed about 6 weeks' of conditioning before he was fit enough to play.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It can be a difficult game to comprehend and follow if one has not played it or watched it at different levels. The first thing to note is that the game has laws not rules, an important distinction. The laws are in principle straightforward as explained further up this thread. In practice the laws are open to considerable interpretation. Leaving aside the not always helpful "interpretation" from the governing body, the sole arbiter of law on the field of play is the Referee aided by his assistants. It really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks the ref is the law. No one wants and overly officious pedant in charge (I'm pointing at you Clancy) or a self important muppet (hello Mr Walsh). We want refs with an empathy for the game ( Owens, Jutge and Poite come on down).

Where rugby differs from other sports is that possession and territorial advantage are hugely important, invariably that advantage is won/lost in the physical contest amongst the donkeys up front. Lose that contest and the game is pretty much up because it is very hard to play going backwards. In top level games the physical battle and softening up may take 3/4 of the game, if at all. The backs then decide the final quantum of the win in the last 15 or 20 minutes once the forwards have won the right.

The physical battle is not without interest, there are sub-contests within the main contest, which makes the game rather more nuanced than many others. The contest of the front rows (usually in conning the ref) the search for line out consistency/superiority, the battle for the gain line at ruck time etc. The maul is a powerful weapon in this, it drains the defence and allows the attack to assert itself. It is a difficult thing to get right but when it is right it is a thing of beauty. There are the kick/chase for territory, this is also hard to get right and too easily degenerates in to aimless hoofing but when done correctly it is a powerful weapon (see Irish against England a couple of weeks back).

You really do have to appreciate these and other aspects of the game to "get it" and that can take time. There is probably little hope for anyone who didn't find Wales-Ireland an intense and exciting game. Try listening to Brian Moore or use the Red Button and select the audio feed from the ref (I assume they still do that) this might help understand what is going on. Stick with it because once you start to "get it" it is is a great game to watch and the excitement doesn't just come from the poseurs out back running in tries, there is much more to admire.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I sat next to Va'aiga Tuigamala in the bath at our club after the All Blacks trained there before a World cup match in 1991. (The forwards wanted "Live" scrummaging so we scrummed against them) I didn't know of him at the time, I just thought he was a Prop.

In reply to the thread:

New rules needed to improve rugby:

1) At the scrum, all penalty offences are reduced to free-kick offences: Would make the whole thing less fraught, and the point of the scrum would be to obtain the ball, rather than, as now, to pressure the opposition into giving a penalty.

2) A tackle instantly becomes a ruck, i.e. no handling of the ball after a tackle. Would speed the game up since rucking is generally faster than the standing over the ball and wrestling for it.

3) No penalty kicks to goal if further than the 10 metre line. This to encourage more going for tries and goal-line action.

4) Don't penalise knock-ons unless the team that knocks on gains a clear advantage from the knock on. This keeps the game going and reduces scrums.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I agree with the last suggestion, not sure about the first three. I see your point though.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I also suggest

5) The front rows engage in a static manner before the rest of the scrum forms around them. This would improve player safety by removing the 'hit,' reduce the number of collapsed scrums and turn it back into a shoving contest to win back possession of the ball.

In reply to Cardi:
There is no longer a hit, it is "set" and is supposed to be static. Making the scrum a contest would be greatly helped by using the current law about a straight put in. To a large extent the problems at the scrum are with the players not the laws. A few coloured cards to the front rows and scrum halves would have more impact than fiddling with the laws.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

It's a bloody lot better than 22 supposed men diving and rolling around the field pretending to be hurt for 90 mins!! 👎 💩

In reply to Dave the Rave:

The difference with football and rugby are footballers spend 90 mins pretending to be hurt and rugby players spend 80 mins pretending not to be hurt!!

In reply to Valley Boy 3:

Oh I dunno. Dramatic diving by players receiving marginally late hits or after obstructions to get the ref's attention seems to be creeping into Union.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

We're probably simpletons oop North so a one dimensional game suits us fine
As regards the flow of the game, the fact that from tackle to play -the-ball rarely takes more than five seconds is the game's biggest attraction for me.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

After watching Italy play France this afternoon it would be hard to disagree with the OP. Dozens of mistakes, hardly any open play. Makes the game at Twickenham yesterday look like a world class performance.

In reply to coinneach:

Yep - touch with girls and kids is a lot better, people respect the small fry, and most of the girls can give a good punch.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
To the poster Asking someone how long they would "last" in scrum? As in reach orgasm?

In reply to peppermill:

Sadly you are right, there does seem to be some acting creeping into the game

In reply to Valley Boy 3:


I would sooner watch a bit of acting than that dross over the weekend. As the OP said, and it's my opinion, it is boring.

Every event seems to end in a penalty. When England won the World Cup a few years back, a kiwi I know took the piss as it was mainly won by Wilkos boot. I had to agree although it was a little sour grapes.

The irish match on Saturday was done with 7 mins to go. At least with proper football injury time winners are common place.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Yeah right lol

In reply to Dave the Rave:


When England won the World Cup a few years back, a kiwi I know took the piss as it was mainly won by Wilkos boot. I had to agree although it was a little sour grapes.


If it hadn't of been for the referee that day, the contest would have been over by half time.

In reply to arch:



Why? What happened

In reply to Dave the Rave:

He penalised England at the scrum when England had the dominant pack. He gave a scrum penalty to Australia to take the game to extra time. I'm not sure how much he refed after that game.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


By the way, I meant no kicks from further *away* than the 10-m line, to encourage them to kick for a lineout in the 22.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


I'd suggest you both stop reading and believing the rubbish published in the antipodean tabloids. The claim was always wrong on so many levels. The most potent weapon in that England team was the 8 forwards, few sides could live with them for any length of time without cheating and giving away penalties. England exploited it by making sure they took the points on offer courtesy of JW's boot. It was part of a clear strategy of domination, hardly rocket science but they were very good at it. The rising score applied more pressure and so on. It was quite common for that side to bide time for 50 or 60 minutes before the backs got the scoreboard spinning.

In the final the England pack was doing the usual job of legitimately beating the Australians into submission to provide the platform for the fun; we had a good idea what was coming. Unfortunately we had reckoned without the ref Andre Watson. It still rankles a bit that he decided this was bullying (as opposed to the Aus pack being useless), took a particular dislike to Trevor Woodman and neutered the weapon that gave England their platform, the scrum. Australia got back into the game from the resulting penalties. Still the pack had the last laugh with that fantastic drive for JW to put the final boot in.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


Not sure what your point is. You do realise there is no injury time, as such, the ref is in charge of the clock and stops/starts as he sees fit (injuries, substitutions, general faffing) therefore the clock you see is game time. The game can go on beyond 40 mins if the ball stays live until an offence is committed.

Last minute, or beyond, thrillers are not unknown, Italy did it in Scotland this year, New Zealand denied Ireland a win in 2013 after time was up. It is not uncommon for a side to check if there is time for a line out before kicking to the corner in the dying seconds; Scotland got the right hump in the first game this year because the ref got that one wrong (in Scottish eyes). These things are less common in rugby because the side in front should prevent it happening by being smart; that is part of the game.

In reply to Horse:
Thanks for the explanation.
So they do play extra time, they just don't time it?

In reply to Horse:


Interesting. I have never read an assessment of that final like that. At the time my rugby knowledge was pretty basic, but thinking back now I can see what you mean.

A ref can impose his style on a match more so than in football and the players need to learn from it. Saturday's Wales v Ireland was a great example of that I think. A penalty-ridden first half with all sorts of infringements, then a brilliant second half where the Welsh adapted their play to suit the ref and performed brilliantly.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


So the ref makes the rules up as he goes along? Interesting idea .
Nothing like black and white.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

So they do play extra time, they just don't time it?

The referee will ask for the clock to be stopped for injuries, etc.
Once full time is reached, the game will stop once the ball goes legally dead.
In theory, the game could go on indefinitely. I was watching a Pro12 match between Cardiff Blues and Connacht and Cardiff scored 8 minutes after the clock went red.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I could be accused of having a one eyed view

There is certainly an element of playing the ref. England got it badly wrong with Walsh in Cardiff two years ago although they would have been stuffed anyway. I missed the second half yesterday, I was on a train to Twickenham.

In fairness to the refs at international level they usually let both sides know how they are going to police certain aspects of the game or what they are not going to tolerate in advance. If you listen to the ref commentary you will see them blow for something and then say to the offending side "We spoke about that before the game" or some such. So the players have to shoulder some responsibility, likewise how many times do your hear the ref say "No hands 6 white" or something at ruck time only for 6 white to carry on and try to grab the ball. It leaves the ref no option.

In reply to FactorXXX:

This is part of the magic of rugby union - The southern hemisphere sides have shown time and time again (often against Wales to my despair) their discipline in able to keep the ball alive, without knocking on, losing possession or giving away penalties and mounting a final offensive to win the game miles after the clock has 'gone red' (final play). New Zealand beating Ireland in November 2013 was a fine example. This rule makes for an incredibly exciting finale in close games

In reply to Cardi:

And remember New Zealand missed the original kick but got a retake as the Irish rushed out before the kicker started his run-up.

Keeping it live to 8 minutes is quite some achievement at any level.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Perhaps the RFU should switch the points awarded for a try and a penalty around ??



You probably wouldn't see any more tries, but there would defiantly be less penalties.

In reply to arch:
The penalty situation is boring. A pile of players on the floor, then for some bizarre reason, they get a free kick at goal???

If they're going to do that, then the penalty spot should be at some extremely oblique angle to the posts?

Or, the penalty shooter should have to get it under the crossbar with all the opposition under it?

In reply to Dave the Rave:

What???? lol

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Rugby league is a proper game:
Something carefree and simple to keep the kids amused.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

They are not bizarre and are invariably correct. If you get tackled you release the ball and the tackler must move away, Failure to do either is a penalty. Next up, assuming the previous is complied with is the contest for the ball. Hands are only allowed if the player remains on their feet, one knee down and that is not the case and penalty will result. By this stage it is a ruck anyway. A player can only enter the ruck from behind the offside line, a line level with the back foot of the hindmost player on either side of the "the pile", come in from the side penalty.

It can get complicated because for any of the above the ref can play an advantage to the side that didn't offend. The ref may wait to see if the advantage develops if not whistle, penalty. So one can have nominally the same situation with very different outcomes.

The TV coverage does now report why the penalty has been given next to the score, it is all pretty transparent.

The penalty is taken from the place of infringement and it is not a done deal that it will result in 3 points because it is a lot harder than it looks. Go out and try knocking one over from 30m out dead in front of the posts never mind from an angle on the wrong side for your natural foot. It is one reason why good kickers (Sexton, Halfpenny and Farrell) are so prized.

In reply to Horse:


What is a ruck? A scrum?


Yeah. They are very talented at that level and don't seem to miss, so perhaps they play for a penalty?
I've had a go at kicking from 20m and it's quite hard, but then I'm not a pro rugby player.
Thanks for your explanations

In reply to Dave the Rave:

A ruck "the ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground". the missing bit is that there might also be bodies on the deck. A good ruck will see one side drive through the bodies at pace and so release the ball to the half backs quickly. If that doesn't happen (and no penalty offences were committed) after a few seconds the ref gets bored and whistles and give a scrum to the side with attacking advantage.

Quick ruck ball is high quality possession because it means the other lot will likely have men tied up in the ruck and therefore momentarily short of defenders and the defensive line may not have formed. This is gives space and time for the attackers. There is real incentive to prevent quick ball, legitimately or otherwise, by defenders.

Also "losing" your ruck ball i.e your side go in with possession but loses it (a turnover) can be even more highly prized for much the same reasons as above but these might be amplified. Hence the reason why rucks are hotly contested.

Ref kickers, they do miss the best will have a success rate of 85% or higher which is pretty good.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

I just remembered, a player must join a ruck on their feet. They can't just dive in like a lunatic missile, doing so will invariably be pinged instantly.

In reply to Valley Boy 3:


Yes, sometimes the football players even bring capsules of fake blood onto the field to simulate injuries!

Oh, hang on a minute, that's not right...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

One English man, one game! It's every game in football players are rolling around like they have been shot lol

In reply to Valley Boy 3:

I think you will find there was more than one involved on the playing and non playing staff.

In reply to Valley Boy 3:

Not at firhill they don't

(Ok some might say there's not much football played there either.... Though after yesterday, they'd be wrong... )

In reply to Horse:

Yes but the player is the one that puts that blood capsule in his mouth, grow a set and tell the coaching staff no!!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Ah, they must be ex rugby players

In reply to Horse:

Thanks for the response; it was interesting to read.

With regard to the 2003 final, it seemed logical to me at the time that England wouldn't be deliberately collapsing the scrum given that they were driving the Aussies back at will. I couldn't understand the ref'ing of that game at all. Made the win even sweeter though.

In reply to Horse:




Even at lower levels ( U 14 in my son's case ) the refs speak to the teams before the match about scrum settings, hands in rucks, going off feet etc.

It pleases me greatly that win or lose there are still three cheers and tunnels formed at full time.

In stark contrast to me running the line at his football club recently and being asked, by a 13 year old mind, if I was " f*cki@g blind?" When I awarded a goal kick instead of a corner.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

In the same final I saw the best example of respect for the referee that I have ever witnessed. I may have got this wrong but, as I recall it, Lawrence Dallalio was penalised by Watson for absolutely no reason that anyone could see, this in a kickable position with Australia only 3 points behind and minutes remaining. Somehow he managed to moderate his not unreasonable desire to rip Watson's head clean off into a quizzical tilt of the eyes.

In a similar era, Roy Keane was setting a very different example.

You can criticise the game of rugby union, and I do think it has diminished as a spectacle for several reasons you amusingly highlighted in the OP, but my son learnt more in that moment about accepting cruel fate and getting on with your plan than in any other.

In reply to Horse:



Although Saturday's ref at Twickenham got it totally wrong and played on for an extra 40 minutes!

In reply to BnB:

Dallagio had many strengths as a player, one was knowing when to provide free consultancy to the referee and when not to! In fairness to Watson he did say after the game that both sides accepted all his decision, including the iffy ones (he preferred to say 50:50) without question and just got on with it. That is the way it should be.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Did we watch today's games, eh Yanis?

Surely your views must have changed. If not, you're beyond hope!!

In reply to exiled_northerner:

Yeah (actually I watched some of the first two and the whole England game). See my post on the Six Nations thread...

In reply to exiled_northerner:

He has seen the light and repented

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Quite justly so! Well done Yanis for appreciating (even if a little confrontationally!) some very fine sport. If the world cup can produce the same, we're in for a major treat. Woohoo!