Not my cup of cake
Rugby sucks - all codes...
Hey, just an opinion.Is Bro any closer to working out how to do a "dislike" button?
You only hear the referee in rugby because they broadcast the microphone and he has a duty to keep the game moving fluidly.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.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?
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 yourI 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.
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.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 hard though to make up for it by retrospective punishment.
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.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 )
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.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.
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?One word.
I can't help thinking, based on your own comments, that this is more about perceived class, rather than the sport of rugby.
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.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.