Rugby World Cup

[Macsen]

(voted thread most likely to sink without trace)

 

Anyone else here interested in Rugby? The World Cup is on at the moment, and has already produced some classic matches. The developing countries have really punched above their weight, with teams like Canada, Japan and Samoa giving the established top 10 a run for their money.

 

The tournament is hosted by France this year, but they've already been beaten by Argentina in the opening match.

[demagogue]

I wouldn't think of Canada and Japan as developing countries ... but maybe in the world of rugby they are.

 

I really don't know why rugby hasn't caught on in the US.

 

I've heard friends say that rugby is too chaotic, nothing like American football which is more strategic ... and rugby fans saying American football is too slow, waiting for play after play ... just let the guy run.

But personally, I can't understand it, if you like one you should really like the other; they basically appeal to the same kind of thinking and moving ... and it's much more like the kind of game we played in high school spontaneously.

 

To answer your question, though, I wish I could be interested, but there is just no outlet to find rugby news or watch games on tv. Every once and a while they'll have an important game on a smaller sports channel, but then I don't have any context.

We're lucky that classic football (soccer) is finally catching on.

 

Hopefully you get some more promising replies than mine!

Edited September 13, 2007 by demagogue

[Nyarlathotep]

What is this "Rugby" you speak of?

[Crispy]

There is only One True Football Code, and it's the one where the players actually, y'know, use their feet.

[sparhawk]

I liked to watch american football. I think Rugby is pretty similar, except for the armor protection right?

Unfortunately it's pretty hard here to find something about it.

[Macsen]

I've heard friends say that rugby is too chaotic, nothing like American football which is more strategic ... and rugby fans saying American football is too slow, waiting for play after play ... just let the guy run.

I think rugby allows the players to be more creative, rather than just following the orders drawn up by the manager. I can appreciate that American Football is more strategic, but I like to see a small moment of genius from a player as he slices open the other team's defence.

 

Regarding why rugby isn't popular in America and American Football not popular over here... I think it's just all to do with the sport you grew up with. Rugby is bigger even than 'soccer' in Wales, it's the national sport. While soccer will get crowds of 30,000 rugby will draw around 75,000 (it'd draw more but that's the biggest stadium we've got).

 

I'm a bit critical of the commercial aspects of American Football. The rules seem to be fit around the adverts rather than the other way around. I'm glad 'soccer' or rugby aren't popular in America because no doubt the rules would be changed to include more adverts.

 

Sparhawk, rugby looks similar to American Football but the rules are quite different. You're not allowed to pass forward so either you have to kick the ball over the defence and try to catch it on the other side or try to find another way through - usually by drawing the opposition player to one side of the pitch and then passing quickly to the other side and finding an overlap. Or just smash through!

[Redface]

I don't like rugby, it doesn't have enough violence. If the ball was replaced with a human head though...

[Macsen]

I don't like rugby, it doesn't have enough violence. If the ball was replaced with a human head though...

Now I understand why you're called 'Redface'...

 

I just paid £80 for a ticket to the Wales v Australia game. Even though we're going to lose horribly.

 

Oh well I'll be 35 by the time the World Cup gets back to Europe...

[Maximius]

When I lived in Orlando a few years back, I used to drink at this Irish pub downtown. This place was actually owned by an Irish guy and most of his staff were Irish too. Great little pub for that crapsink of a town. But the point is that every Saturday these guys got together to play something they called "Celtic" football. I asked if they meant rugby and they said no, its even more primitive than rugby.

 

My buddy and I decided to go out with the team one Saturday and screw around. We never made it to the match but at the pub that night I had no regrets, as one of the guys who played had had his front eight teeth kicked out by accident. Come to think of it, another buddy in Florida who was a amateur soccer player broke his ankle at a match I went to watch. Fuck sports.

[demagogue]

Very much reminds me of high school.

Among other things we made up, we used to play also a very primitive version, 'smear the queer' or just 'throw up'. Basically, it's every person for themselves, everyone stands in a circle and one guy throws up the ball, whoever catches it starts running until tackled, then he throws the ball up again, and so it goes. Each person gets 1 point for themselves if they cross the goal. Then we just start going in the reverse direction.

 

One guy was a quiet, smaller guy but known to be tough. He got tackled in a particularly awkward way, and when he stood up his collar bone was sticking out! obviously broken. And we're like, man, your collar bone is sticking out! And he says, really? I better do something about that. And he calmly walks past us, back to the locker room. Incredible.

 

I never got hurt. I never really played hard enough to put myself at threat.

So I guess it's easy for me to say I loved these kinds of improvised sports.

The more organized, the worse it got.

The only organized sport I could tolerate was track and cross-country running.

Edited September 15, 2007 by demagogue

[Macsen]

But the point is that every Saturday these guys got together to play something they called "Celtic" football. I asked if they meant rugby and they said no, its even more primitive than rugby.

I wouldn't say Rugby or 'Celtic' football are primitive. They're more physical than football, but more complex. The players also tend to be better educated than in football because there isn't as much money in rugby, and it's still considered a middle to upper class sport. There's a common saying here that "Rugby is a thug's game played by gentlemen and football is a gentlemen's game played by thugs".

[Maximius]

I wouldn't say Rugby or 'Celtic' football are primitive. They're more physical than football, but more complex. The players also tend to be better educated than in football because there isn't as much money in rugby, and it's still considered a middle to upper class sport. There's a common saying here that "Rugby is a thug's game played by gentlemen and football is a gentlemen's game played by thugs".

 

 

They were probably trying to spook me with visions of snapped ankles and fingers and such. I personally find soccer and rugby and all to be a hell of a lot more interesting to watch and even to try to play than US football. I was a bookworm raised by a football family, uncle was almost a coach for the Miami Dolphins years ago, knew Tom Landry personally, cousins were all football heroes, so it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

 

@Dem-we played smear the queer as well (forgive the homophobic title readers as we were twelve year olds) , one old gym coach used to blow his top because we would rather play that or frisbee tag (or Tron as we called it) than stupid ass football or all that crap. Not that the games themselves are bad, its the hype, the stupidity of the big organized sports that turned me off.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Maximius

[Macsen]

The final is tonight at 8pm GMT.

 

South Africa v England.

[oDDity]

Even though you congenitally despise the English, you have to admit they've done well to reach the final again and defend their title. Most people would have laughed if you'd predicted it before the tournament started.

IF only England's footballers showed this sort of spirit and determination they might get somewhere.

[Macsen]

Even though you congenitally despise the English

Since when? My mum's from Sheffield.

 

Hats off the South Africa though, they were the best team in the end.

[oDDity]

Not really. The match was far closer than the final score. Video referees debatable decisions, silly trips and slips giving penalties etc. SA didn't exactly look like unbeatable champions.

Take those silliest of 6 points away from SA, and give England that 7 points (and many video refs would have) and England would have won.

I hate games that come down to silly things like this.

[Macsen]

I didn't say SA won it by a landslide. But they were the better team. They dominated the line out stealing English balls and even managed to turn the English scrum, an area where England should have dominated over the SA pack. England had played a simple game since the pool stages but their only hope was that they were two points behind with the end in sight and they didn't have a plan when they went far behind. SA could always play ugly but if they went behind they could let rip with their backs like Habana. If England's try had been awarded I think we'd have seen a South Africa try soon, but as things were they didn't need one and could concentrate on defending. England may have given SA 6 soft points, but they did give them readily. Ireland failed to make it out of the pool stages for giving silly points away to France - England knows it loses you games (especially given their gameplan) and should have kept their discipline. That trip could have sent Moody (I think it was him) to the sin-bin, Vickery got a match ban for one against the USA, so they were lucky there. As for Cueto's 'try', his foot was in touch and that's that. Having told loads of NZ fans to get over the forward pass that kicked them out of the tournament I can't really complain about referee decisions against the home nations.

 

I wasn't sad to see SA win though -with the new quota system coming into place after this match it may be a while before we see a world beating SA team again. Not to say that the black SA popuation are any less talented then the white players, but as I understand it there's a lack of match experience there.

 

Anyway now the home nations sides need to use the next four years well to build World Cup winning sides rather than doing bugger all like in the last 4 years. It looks like NZ has the next one in the bag already, playing at home, but then I say the All Blacks has it in the bag every four years.

[Serpentine]

Heh, not that I watch Rugby or anything like that, but it was a close game... the play by our guys wasnt all that good at all, lotsa errors and such - but it was good to watch

 

As for quota's and all the rest - those have been around since 1995 odd, on and off in all the sports, soon as we start getting dominated and a few coaches leave they drop the issue for a while and we pick up again. But its the same everywhere, they seed black managers into huge companies and stuff, then the companies start failing hard... a few months later they are all removed or given "special" jobs that keep them out of direct management and the company bounces back, happens far too often (maybe I am being general, but meh). As a white male, I cant even stay and work in my own country when I am done with my degree, because someone less qualified, less suited for the job will get paid more and placed ahead of me to take it. Also the pay is like half what it is in the UK (All your London are belong to us) :/ Atm we're just liek a breeding ground for the rest of the world's talent *cough* how many of the english team ?

 

anyway... slight vent there

[Macsen]

Atm we're just liek a breeding ground for the rest of the world's talent *cough* how many of the english team?

Mike Catt? That's the only one I can think of.

 

Congrats on the title though.