Rugby Rugby Sucks
- Thread starter FB
- Start date
- Status
Hey, just an opinion.
If I want to see a bunch of public school boys fighting I'll go and stand outside Marlborough College or Eton on a Friday night. Certainly not going to pay for the pleasure.
Just one other point, many say those who don't like Rugby don't understand the rules, well that's not true in my case. One of the biggest problems I have is that many of the players don't; hence why the referee has to "coach" the players on the pitch to warn them they are trangressing. Can you imagine in football the linesman or referee shouting out to Drogba or Gerrard, "You're about to go offside son, come back a couple of yards", no, so why in rugby?
Because, FB, it's about ensuring the game keeps flowing. Unlike football, we don't have to worry about some over-paid prima donna rolling around on the pitch after he's been tapped, trying to claim a free kick.
Nor do we have to worry about keeping two sets of fans separated in the stands in case they start trying to kill each other.
You only hear the referee in rugby because they broadcast the microphone and he has a duty to keep the game moving fluidly.
Can you imagine Drogba or Gerrard calmly accepting the ref's decision and saying "yes sir, absolutely right sir, sorry sir" after a transgression, instead of their usual brand of thuggery whereby they surround the referee and attempt to swear him into submission.
I didn't want to get into the whole "Rugby vs Football" thing for exactly the reasons shown above. I cannot argue with the fact that footballers behave discragefully with regard to sportsmanship but I have never seen a footballer kidney punching another player as "part of the game", raking their studs across another players face as "part of the game" or, most appallingly from Rugby's perspective, eye gouging, which was a legitimate tactic until a few years ago.
Anyway, to draw other comparison (and get away from the rugby vs football thing), the referee in ice hockey or tennis or cricket, or any other sport for that matter, doesn't have to remind the players if they are about to trangress. Can you imagine the line judge at Wimbledon saying "Excuse me Mr Federer you're getting a bit close to the base line on service and I might have to foot fault you" or a cricket umpire warning James Anderson that he's getting a bit close to the crease and runs the risk of a no-ball? If the players don't understand the rules well enough in Rugby for the referee not to have to remind them that what they are doing is wrong then there is a fundamental problem with the game.
Enough from me, I'll leave this thread alone. Suffice to say I won't be watching any of the 6 Nations or the rugby world cup for that matter. Pointless, passionless, mid-class game which I have no interest in what so ever.
I thank you
Anyway, to draw other comparison (and get away from the rugby vs football thing), the referee in ice hockey or tennis or cricket, or any other sport for that matter, doesn't have to remind the players if they are about to trangress. Can you imagine the line judge at Wimbledon saying "Excuse me Mr Federer you're getting a bit close to the base line on service and I might have to foot fault you" or a cricket umpire warning James Anderson that he's getting a bit close to the crease and runs the risk of a no-ball? If the players don't understand the rules well enough in Rugby for the referee not to have to remind them that what they are doing is wrong then there is a fundamental problem with the game.
Enough from me, I'll leave this thread alone. Suffice to say I won't be watching any of the 6 Nations or the rugby world cup for that matter. Pointless, passionless, mid-class game which I have no interest in what so ever.
I thank you
Hey, just an opinion.
If I want to see a bunch of public school boys fighting I'll go and stand outside Marlborough College or Eton on a Friday night. Certainly not going to pay for the pleasure.
Just one other point, many say those who don't like Rugby don't understand the rules, well that's not true in my case. One of the biggest problems I have is that many of the players don't; hence why the referee has to "coach" the players on the pitch to warn them they are trangressing. Can you imagine in football the linesman or referee shouting out to Drogba or Gerrard, "You're about to go offside son, come back a couple of yards", no, so why in rugby?
As far as "coaching" from the Ref goes, he's not coaching, he's warning players that they are about to transgress the law. Nothing wrong with that. Because of the way the game is played in rucks it's not often obvious to players if they are on in an offiside position or not. When a rugby ref makes a decision every one knows why, he indicates not only to the players but the stands as well, why that decision is made. The players themselves call the Ref "Sir". Only the captain may talk to the Ref, and you certainly don't see a crowd of Rugby players storming around the Ref after each decision swearing and shouting at him that he's got it wrong. If a rugby ref is unsure, he goes and talks to his linesmen, or refers some decisions to the TV Ref.
Remember when as an experiment, the FA placed a mic in David Ellery for one game. Remember Tony Adams calling Ellery a
As Jez has pointed out, I can go to a match, drink a pint in the stands, stand next to a fan from the opposite team, discuss the game, have a laugh and enjoy the experience.
I wouldn't say that any of that has ever been "part of the game" all though I accept that some players can be as dirty as football players in the respect of dirty play. Rugby tries hare though to make up for it by retrospective punishment. How often do you hear in football that the FA have taken action after a game. It's very very rare and only normaly happens after there has been some sort of outcry. No action for example, was taken against Roy Keane after he hacked down a player and told him "I hope it ends your
I was talking with a ex-professional rugby player recently who played for "The Sharks" (not a clue). As far as he was concerned raking, if a player was in the way of you getting the ball was perfectly acceptable, as was kidney punching, again to get at the ball - all part of the game. In fact, you could pretty much use any means necessary to move a player out of the way, should you deem it appropriate.
One other BIG problem I have with rugby is the penalty try system. There is no other sport (apart from ice dancing or synchronised swimming) where an official can award points even if the team hasn't scored. If the rugby players have broken the rules in such a way that the attacking team missed a scoring opportunity it can never be certain that they would have scored so let them have a kick at goal don't just give them the points based on someone's opinion.
Finally, and at this point I promise I will stop, the term "try" refers to having the opportunity to try for a kick at goal. Why now have the rules been twisted to make touching the ball down in the "end zone" more important than kicking the ball? If kicking a drop goal is deemed so easy why are ther only ever 1 or 2 specialist players in the team who have the right skills to do this where as (almost) anyone can be in the right position to score a try.
Finally, finally, why do rugby fans always try to defend rugby by critcising or drawing comparisons with football. It is an entirely specious argument. Rugby was born of football when one of the privileged young men attending Rugby school picked the ball up and ran with it. "What Ho!" said the masters, "Webb Ellis has invented a new game". If I'd done that when playing football at school the tecaher refing the match would have blow the whistle, given the other side a free kick and probably me a thick ear. Don't defend a sport by criticising another and as for the "bon homie" at rugby games, this, to me at least, smacks of a lack of passion primarily drive by the uber middle class nature of the game (although, for my sins, I love cricket which is probably the most middle class game of them all
)
Wow, why so miserable?
What brought on all this moaning? Ah, I think FB is still upset that he had a bad world cup. Here is his video-blog of the World Cup in S.Africa
Misery Bear's World Cup
What brought on all this moaning? Ah, I think FB is still upset that he had a bad world cup. Here is his video-blog of the World Cup in S.Africa
Misery Bear's World Cup
I was talking with a ex-professional rugby player recently who played for "The Sharks" (not a clue). As far as he was concerned raking, if a player was in the way of you getting the ball was perfectly acceptable, as was kidney punching, again to get at the ball - all part of the game. In fact, you could pretty much use any means necessary to move a player out of the way, should you deem it appropriate.
One other BIG problem I have with rugby is the penalty try system. There is no other sport (apart from ice dancing or synchronised swimming) where an official can award points even if the team hasn't scored. If the rugby players have broken the rules in such a way that the attacking team missed a scoring opportunity it can never be certain that they would have scored so let them have a kick at goal don't just give them the points based on someone's opinion.
Finally, and at this point I promise I will stop, the term "try" refers to having the opportunity to try for a kick at goal. Why now have the rules been twisted to make touching the ball down in the "end zone" more important than kicking the ball? If kicking a drop goal is deemed so easy why are ther only ever 1 or 2 specialist players in the team who have the right skills to do this where as (almost) anyone can be in the right position to score a try.
Finally, finally, why do rugby fans always try to defend rugby by critcising or drawing comparisons with football. It is an entirely specious argument. Rugby was born of football when one of the privileged young men attending Rugby school picked the ball up and ran with it. "What Ho!" said the masters, "Webb Ellis has invented a new game". If I'd done that when playing football at school the tecaher refing the match would have blow the whistle, given the other side a free kick and probably me a thick ear. Don't defend a sport by criticising another and as for the "bon homie" at rugby games, this, to me at least, smacks of a lack of passion primarily drive by the uber middle class nature of the game (although, for my sins, I love cricket which is probably the most middle class game of them all
Ok, you got me on the talking to the proffesional. If that's his opinion then I have to disagree with it but you can't win them all.
The Penalty Try is a great rule. I can't think of a instance when it hasn't been applied correctly but then as you say it's subjective. To use the Rugby / Football comparison that you don't like, why is it that a player can hand ball on the line to prevent a clear goal and the attacking team are only awarded a penalty which the keeper then goes on to save? That's not fair is it??
You are indeed correct, originally the Try was worth no points but touching down in the end zone was rewarded with a try at goal. I guess as time has gone on people have looked at the game and deceided that it is harder to score a try than kick a goal. You are correct again that there are only one or two specialist kickers on the pitch at any one time but look how many kicks a team can score (penalties and drop goals) in comparison to how many tries.
As for your interesting summing up on the creation of Rugby, sadly William Web Ellis picking up the ball and running with it while saying tally ho chaps is almost certainly a myth. Until the formation of the Football asscoation in 1863 there were no set rules for the game of Football and different schools, uni's and other establishments played different versions of the game. The big split occured when the teams who met to form the Football Association voted to not carry forward two rules from the cambridge rules of the game that included being able to catch the ball. At the alledged time of Web-Ellis's so called run with the ball, it seems that catching was a perfectly acceptable part of the game and that the myth surrounding Ellis did not start until some time in the 1870's. I guess it was deemed excellent PR for Rugby School. Either way, Rugby was never born of Football in the same way that Football was never born of Rugby. They sprang from the same well at the same time.
Now I except that no game is perfect and however hard we try as rugby fans you will never be converted to the joys of the game. I would ask you this though, is your dislike of rugby because you dislike the way the game is played or is it a class issue? As far as the way the game is played, you can only gain an appreciation of it by watching more or playing it. As for the class thing, I'm sorry but it may have started as a game associated with private schools but it's a game now played across the world, regardless of class, background or wealth.
To say that enjoying the atmosphere in the stands between sets of fans shows a lack of passion is a load of poppycock. I've been to some thrilling games which are full of passion and pride. In fact if you want to see passion you only have to stand in the Millenium Stadium for a Welsh rugby international to see what passion looks like. However, if passion means segregated fans behind metal cages, hemmed in by hundreds of police then I think I'd rather not.
So if we for a minute ignore people's stance towards the sport, how do the salaries paid to professional footballers compare to the ones paid to professional rugby players? Or indeed the transfer fees? Surely the cost of tickets for a premier league football game is now prohibitively expensive? Especially when they expect their grass roots fans to go every week (or at least to every home game).
I won't mention the champagne lifestyle, flash cars and expensive holidays that top footballers enjoy...
I won't mention the champagne lifestyle, flash cars and expensive holidays that top footballers enjoy...
There are both elements to my dislike of rugby.
Firstly, the nature of the game is confusing to uneducated (in the rules of rugby that is) viewer. The rules are constantly adjusted to make the game "more exciting" for general consumption. I have a similar problem with the tie-break in tennis - introduced solely for the benefit of the short attention span of TV viewers yet when a game ends 56-54 (or what ever it was at Wimbledon last year) it drew more viewers than any other match. If the basic rules of rugby are not exciting enough for general consumption then leave it as the minority sport it always was, don't dress it up to try and make it a spectacle.
One other thing, you rarely see kids play in a park playing with a rugby ball, even at the height of the season or during the much over-hyped six nations. Why? Simply because it's such a complex game that without expert input the kids can't play it.
Secondly, on the class issue, rugby in England is super middle class - most players are either from public school or grammar schools. This is not true for all other rugby playing nations and in Wales specifically it is the working man's game and their national sport.
On Jez's point - you coming back to comparing football and rugby and the argument is specious. Football is the largest spectator sport in the world and generates huge amounts of money (money rugby could only dream about) and the salaries paid to the main assests of the team i.e. the players, reflects the money they generate. As an examples Old Trafford seats in excess of 70,000 people, if each of those pays £30 (and many pay far more) that in itself brings in £2.1 million for Manchester United - this igonres all the corporate sponsors, players sponsors, shirt sponsors and TV money. When David Beckham joined Real Madrid his salary was paid for by the replica shirt sales alone. Never forget when rugby went professional it nearly bankrupted the sport as the teams and the RFU massively overestimated public interest and started paying football size salaries to the players.
Ticket prices for football aren't that extortionate either. West Brom have 1/2 season tickets on sale at the moment ranging between £229 and £289 to see 10 games in the much vaunted "best league in the world" (you can agree or disagree with that, draw your own conclusions as to my opinion).
Firstly, the nature of the game is confusing to uneducated (in the rules of rugby that is) viewer. The rules are constantly adjusted to make the game "more exciting" for general consumption. I have a similar problem with the tie-break in tennis - introduced solely for the benefit of the short attention span of TV viewers yet when a game ends 56-54 (or what ever it was at Wimbledon last year) it drew more viewers than any other match. If the basic rules of rugby are not exciting enough for general consumption then leave it as the minority sport it always was, don't dress it up to try and make it a spectacle.
One other thing, you rarely see kids play in a park playing with a rugby ball, even at the height of the season or during the much over-hyped six nations. Why? Simply because it's such a complex game that without expert input the kids can't play it.
Secondly, on the class issue, rugby in England is super middle class - most players are either from public school or grammar schools. This is not true for all other rugby playing nations and in Wales specifically it is the working man's game and their national sport.
On Jez's point - you coming back to comparing football and rugby and the argument is specious. Football is the largest spectator sport in the world and generates huge amounts of money (money rugby could only dream about) and the salaries paid to the main assests of the team i.e. the players, reflects the money they generate. As an examples Old Trafford seats in excess of 70,000 people, if each of those pays £30 (and many pay far more) that in itself brings in £2.1 million for Manchester United - this igonres all the corporate sponsors, players sponsors, shirt sponsors and TV money. When David Beckham joined Real Madrid his salary was paid for by the replica shirt sales alone. Never forget when rugby went professional it nearly bankrupted the sport as the teams and the RFU massively overestimated public interest and started paying football size salaries to the players.
Ticket prices for football aren't that extortionate either. West Brom have 1/2 season tickets on sale at the moment ranging between £229 and £289 to see 10 games in the much vaunted "best league in the world" (you can agree or disagree with that, draw your own conclusions as to my opinion).
But why pay so much for a seat? Answer - to pay for the hugely inflated salaries of top players. If they didn't pay them such ridiculous salaries, there would be no need to charge so much for a ticket. And it's those inflated salaries that put top footballers smack into the upper class lifestyle. Football may be played at an amateur level by all classes, but at the top level, the players very much lead a very upper class lifestyle.
And as for lower classes not playing rugby - all the state schools where I grew up in Glasgow played rugby and none of them played football and we're talking about a city with teams like Rangers and Celtic here where football is a religion.
Oh and the professional rugby teams in the UK play under a cap. Last year they had to operate under £4M a season. That wouldn't even pay a top flight players salary for a year.
I will grant you cricket is very much an upper middle class sport, especailly in England. Most of the (English) players are public school, or grammar school, educated and many are Oxbridge blues. But, and it's a big but, it is an accessible game for kids to play. With a school bag as a wicket, a bat for a fiver from Sport Direct and a tennis ball you can go and play cricket. You don't need to know what a googly is or where the fielder stands when in "the covers". This is not true of rugby, how many kids in a park would know when it's time for a line out or a scrum?
On schools and rugby, perhaps the experience in Scotland is different. Certainly the perception of the game outside of England is different. On the salaries issue, rugby pays what it can afford and so does football (or not in the case of Pompey
I agree with you on the constant tweeks to the rule book. This is something being driven very much by southern hemasphere rugby because in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia it is the number one sport and a big money maker. The problem with the proffesional implimentation of the game was the fact that again it was being driven by the Southern Hemashpere teams and was implemented in Northern hemasphere rugby at a rush in order to prevent an exodus of players and sponsorship.
I also agree with you on the lack of kids playing rugby. The sport itself had a golden opportunity to interest a new generation of kids in the sport on the back of Englands world cup win in 2003. Sadly it seems that the RFU didn't grasp the nettle and it remains an opportunity wasted.
I wouldn't describe the Six nations as over-hyped. That's a strange statement to say about the second most watched ball sport in Britain. I'd like to hear your thoughts on what way you think it's over-hyped? Compare last years six nations game on the same weekend as the Bahrain GP. The Rugby was watched by 5.4 million viewers, the Bahrain GP by 4.2 million viewers. (Granted, Football is the globes number one sport and couldn't compete on the same level for TV viewership).
I'd dearly love watch a series of home football internationals but they were stopped in the early 80's due to issues of violence and crowd control. The four Football Associations couldn't even get together to agree on a team to represent Great Britain at the Olympics. Compare that to the British and Irish Lions who tour every four years.
I know you can't compare Football and it's global dominance to Rugby and I'm pretty sure that if you offered the average Rugby player, Rooney's wages to play the game he'd jump at the chance.
As for the class issue, it's one I can't get my head around I'm sorry. I make no appologies for who I am and I don't expect any one else to either, any way, didn't the last Labour Government tell us we are all middle class now? I just can't see it as a valid argument to dislike a sport. Football, (yes I know, here I go again but these I feel a valid comparissons) has long since stopped being a working mans game. It stopped being that once Sunday fixtures, and monday fixtures, and Wednesday fixtures, and Friday night fixtures came on the scene. It stopped being a working mans game with the introduction of all seater stadium and foreign owners. As a Pompey fan you know bettter than most FB, of the dangers of over reaching and having a chairman who sees the club as something to tell your friends you own rather than to run as a serious buisness. I challenge you to go to Old Trafford on a match day and see how many of your traditional "working class" men are going to the game?
Sorry, not buying it.
Cricket is more middle class than rugby, much more.
The rules of cricket are far more confusing than rugby or any other sport - how many matches in other sports are called a draw when one team has more points than the other?
Yet these are your two main reason for hating rugby?
Cricket is more middle class than rugby, much more.
The rules of cricket are far more confusing than rugby or any other sport - how many matches in other sports are called a draw when one team has more points than the other?
Yet these are your two main reason for hating rugby?
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
