Football vs Rugby

[EvenFlow]

I’m completely disenfranchised with football at the top level, to the point where I no longer consider myself a football fan- I’m strictly a Walsall fan at this point.

As such, I’ve been making a genuine, concerted effort to get into Rugby. My dad is 100% converted. However, I’m struggling.

Something that has always irritated me is the way some Rugby fans go on about football- “rolling around the floor pretending to be hurt” (doesn’t really happen very often at all), “rugby is a real man’s game” (what does this even mean?), “fans don’t need to be segregated” (in fairness, I see both pros and cons in this) “in Rugby, they respect the referee” etc.

Genuinely not trying to wind anyone up, but through my observations in my efforts, there is so much about Rugby I just can’t get to grips with/find utterly ridiculous. I had my old man howling with laughter yesterday at my assessment of Rugby from a purely Football perspective. I’ve heard enough of their scoffing and clichés, like the above, so…..

There are more ways to score than skin a cat:
- Touch the ball over that massive, wide, gaping line; but,
- If you can’t touch the ball over the line, you can kick it over those posts. However,
- If you can’t kick it over the posts, we’ll stop everything, place the ball carefully, and we’ll give you two hours, unopposed and unblocked, to kick it over those posts. And,
- If it looks like you might’ve, perhaps, possibly gone on to touch the ball over the line, we’ll stop everything, give you a free, unimpeded kick at the posts, and give you the same number of points as if you had touched it over the line.

You can’t pass forward. Yet the aim is to get the ball forward.

“They respect the referee.” Or, the rules are so needlessly convoluted, no-one (players or ref) appears to be quite sure what they are.

The video ref. Sure you can’t drag that out a bit longer? I’m not sure I’ve quite stopped caring after the fourteenth replay from the fifth different angle. Jesus Wept, make a pissing decision already.

Sometimes the team kicking it out get the throw-in. Sometimes they concede the throw-in. Depends....
..... Footballer: Hey, if I stick this free kick miles over the bar, perhaps we’ll get a corner!

I watched the second half of the France-Scotland Six Nations game yesterday. France put the ball in at a scrum at a 45 degree angle, blatantly passing it to their back row, rendering the whole scrum completely pointless. Something indistinguishable from everything else happens from there, and France get a “penalty”. Ref plays advantage- fair enough. Literally several minutes later, one of the French plays fumble-dropsie, so the ref pulls them back & gives France a free kick at the posts. In football, after 3-5 seconds, if you fail to do anything with the advantage given, its tough cack, play on. France score their free kick at the posts… so then, from the restart, Scotland have to boot the ball back to them and defend again?!

On a related note- they get endless, incessant free kicks at the massive, oversized posts. No goalkeeper. No wall. And they still don’t score half the time.

Anyone else feel the same?
Or, has anyone else successfully gotten to grips with the idiosyncrasies of the oval ball after a lifetime’s exposure to the round one? If so, lets discuss- I genuinely want to understand the appeal.

[Sound_out]

Rugby is a superior game to football in just about every department. It's a far better game to watch, players are more professional and respectful on the field and the you don't have to be anywhere near pathetic little wannabe chavs. AND you can have a beer in your seat happily sitting next to an opposing supporter enjoying a chat. Football is shite in comparison.

I think a good starting point when trying to understand something new is to educate yourself by reading a book or watching a tutorial. It's stating the obvious but knowing the rules helps you follow what is happening on the pitch.

Saturday's game was immense. England have a great young team.

[EvenFlow]

I think a good starting point when trying to understand something new is to educate yourself by reading a book or watching a tutorial. It's stating the obvious but knowing the rules helps you follow what is happening on the pitch.

This is the problem- I do get the rules, for the most part- I just find them very counter-intuitive in places. The kicking back to the opposition after you've conceded, the aforementioned advantage that lasts forever etc.

Same with the scoring- I get how it works, but if the ultimate aim is to score a try- again using France vs Scotland as a metric- Scotland scored two and France scored one, yet France won by a margin of more points than a try is worth. I can't assimilate that. In football, the goal is sacred. Whether it's scored in the third minute or the eighty third, it changes the complexion of the game from that point on. Someone kicks a penalty in Rugby- I dunno, it just feels comparatively inconsequential, because someone else will just go and kick another one in a few minutes. It only feels, to my novice mind, like the last 10-15 minutes actually matter.

[Sound_out]

I think a good starting point when trying to understand something new is to educate yourself by reading a book or watching a tutorial. It's stating the obvious but knowing the rules helps you follow what is happening on the pitch.

This is the problem- I do get the rules, for the most part- I just find them very counter-intuitive in places. The kicking back to the opposition after you've conceded, the aforementioned advantage that lasts forever etc.

Same with the scoring- I get how it works, but if the ultimate aim is to score a try- again using France vs Scotland as a metric- Scotland scored two and France scored one, yet France won by a margin of more points than a try is worth. I can't assimilate that. In football, the goal is sacred. Whether it's scored in the third minute or the eighty third, it changes the complexion of the game from that point on. Someone kicks a penalty in Rugby- I dunno, it just feels comparatively inconsequential, because someone else will just go and kick another one in a few minutes. It only feels, to my novice mind, like the last 10-15 minutes actually matter.

You need to study the game a bit more! When a penalty is conceded, you can either go for goal or kick for touch in the oppositions half, ideally inside their 22 metre line as close to the goal line as possible. The ball can go straight out and because the kick comes from a penalty you get the line-out put in which then puts huge pressure on the defending team and could lead to a try.

Advantage is played to keep the game moving for as long as possible. If no advantage is gained, then you go back to the original infringement.

Points can be scored in a variety of ways. Penalties can be awarded for scum dominance, for example, and keep the scoreboard ticking over. It's a game of many layers/battles and not just about scoring tries. Forward dominance generally leads to penalties which can easily win a game on its own.

[aaaae]

I was lucky, in that I have always played football, but also started playing rugby at 11. Football is my first love, but I also love rugby. I think football is a superior game, football is chess, rugby is draughts.

I’m completely disenfranchised with football at the top level, to the point where I no longer consider myself a football fan- I’m strictly a Walsall fan at this point.

Me too.

As such, I’ve been making a genuine, concerted effort to get into Rugby. My dad is 100% converted. However, I’m struggling.

Keep at it, it's worth it if for no other reason that it's an excuse to go down the pub with some mates to watch the game, as I did on Sunday.

Something that has always irritated me is the way some Rugby fans go on about football- “rolling around the floor pretending to be hurt” (doesn’t really happen very often at all), “rugby is a real man’s game” (what does this even mean?).

This is a great example. Here rugby fans are right and wrong. I find it incredibly frustrating the amount of cheating and feigning that goes on in football today. Watch a footie match from the 70's and see how they kicked each other up in the air and got on with it. But Rugby fans are mistaken to think this makes rugby players tougher. In my experience the real dangerous psychos play football. Rugby players will bash each other about, but don't really want to hurt each other, as you'd expect from nice middle class boys. Watch Joe Launchbury play, then listen to him speak.

“fans don’t need to be segregated” (in fairness, I see both pros and cons in this)

Another plus and minus. What could be better than going to the Moulinex standing together, singing together, in a shower of who knows what from above and walking away with the points? The tribal nature of football can be intense and exhilarating. I've sat next to many prize idiots at rugby (I dare say they would say the same about me).

“in Rugby, they respect the referee” etc.

This I support 100%. Football players giving officials verbal abuse should be sent straight off. It would stop it dead. Why the FA put up with it is beyond me.

Genuinely not trying to wind anyone up, but through my observations in my efforts, there is so much about Rugby I just can’t get to grips with/find utterly ridiculous. I had my old man howling with laughter yesterday at my assessment of Rugby from a purely Football perspective. I’ve heard enough of their scoffing and clichés, like the above, so…..

There are more ways to score than skin a cat:
- Touch the ball over that massive, wide, gaping line; but,
- If you can’t touch the ball over the line, you can kick it over those posts. However,
- If you can’t kick it over the posts, we’ll stop everything, place the ball carefully, and we’ll give you two hours, unopposed and unblocked, to kick it over those posts. And,
- If it looks like you might’ve, perhaps, possibly gone on to touch the ball over the line, we’ll stop everything, give you a free, unimpeded kick at the posts, and give you the same number of points as if you had touched it over the line.

Most scoring in rugby has evolved over time, whereas football is simple, put the ball in the net! Originally a try didn't even score you any points. It just gave you chance to have a free try at goal. You could only score points by kicking the ball between the posts. Rugby rules change all the time. Every season it seems there are two or three major rule changes, either for safety or to make the game more entertaining. It is confusing though.

You can’t pass forward. Yet the aim is to get the ball forward.

Because the aim of the game is to encourage running with the ball in hand, which is why we have rugby in the first place, just ask William Webb Ellis.

“They respect the referee.” Or, the rules are so needlessly convoluted, no-one (players or ref) appears to be quite sure what they are.

Because they are nice middle class boys, used to doing what they are told.

The video ref. Sure you can’t drag that out a bit longer? I’m not sure I’ve quite stopped caring after the fourteenth replay from the fifth different angle. Jesus Wept, make a pissing decision already.

Agree with this. Let the referee decide. If he makes a mistake live with it. Only players who never make mistakes (no-one) should be allowed to criticise. Just get on with the game.

Sometimes the team kicking it out get the throw-in. Sometimes they concede the throw-in. Depends....
..... Footballer: Hey, if I stick this free kick miles over the bar, perhaps we’ll get a corner!

I watched the second half of the France-Scotland Six Nations game yesterday. France put the ball in at a scrum at a 45 degree angle, blatantly passing it to their back row, rendering the whole scrum completely pointless.

Crooked feed is illegal, but for some reason is now allowed by referees. The laws say the ball must be put in between the two hookers. Baffling. It's the same with foul throws in football. Referees have unilaterally decided to allow them.

Something indistinguishable from everything else happens from there, and France get a “penalty”. Ref plays advantage- fair enough. Literally several minutes later, one of the French plays fumble-dropsie, so the ref pulls them back & gives France a free kick at the posts. In football, after 3-5 seconds, if you fail to do anything with the advantage given, its tough cack, play on. France score their free kick at the posts… so then, from the restart, Scotland have to boot the ball back to them and defend again?!.

The rules can be complicated, and I think very hard to decipher if you've never played the game. Like a card game I played in the pub on Wednesday night, I was completely baffled when the rules were being explained, but a couple of hands in and you pick it up.

On a related note- they get endless, incessant free kicks at the massive, oversized posts. No goalkeeper. No wall. And they still don’t score half the time.

Like footballers missing the target taking a penalty?

Anyone else feel the same?
Or, has anyone else successfully gotten to grips with the idiosyncrasies of the oval ball after a lifetime’s exposure to the round one? If so, lets discuss- I genuinely want to understand the appeal.

After all it's just a good excuse to go down the pub and cheer on your team. Or to travel round the country visiting new grounds. There's a lot of fun to be had with it. Some ups and some downs. Top level football is not worth wasting your time on at the moment.

[Kevlar]

“in Rugby, they respect the referee” etc.
”

Pity they don't respect their opponents more........................stud raking , punching , eye gouging and spiking are commonplace , and the amount of biting would embarass Luis Suarez.

Rugby is also top of list of UK sports for drug taking offences.

Add the fact that the rugby fans I know seem to regard themselves as somehow superior to us football low life .........and I'm afraid "I'm out "

[Cully]

“in Rugby, they respect the referee” etc.
”

Pity they don't respect their opponents more........................stud raking , punching , eye gouging and spiking are commonplace , and the amount of biting would embarass Luis Suarez.

Rugby is also top of list of UK sports for drug taking offences.

Add the fact that the rugby fans I know seem to regard themselves as somehow superior to us football low life .........and I'm afraid "I'm out "

Probably sums up what Rugby is really about.......it's just a macho, physical, brutal battle as far removed from skill as you can probably get. The bigger, fatter, violent or more freakish giants have an obvious advantage when it appears that the main aim would be to run into your opponent at the earliest opportunity. Apparently this 'mans' game is all about legitimate violence and it is little wonder there are so many serious injuries.
There is no worthwhile comparison to be made with football regards skill where controlling, passing, dribbling, shooting, heading and tackling with a ball are the primary objectives not physically assaulting your opponent to prevent him getting the ball.

No wonder we often hear all this nonsense about having a beer while you're watching the rugby, probably the only way it is worth watching is when you're drunk.

Rugby will always be a minority sport.

[SaigonSaddler]

There's a reason why football is the most popular sport in the world.
It's probably because it is the most exciting sport (as determined in psychological tests) , largely due to its capacity to go from end to end so quickly and the cathartic release of each goal.

Rugby - interesting, but lacks the sheer visceral intensity, unless you're within proximity of Welsh, Scottish or Aussie fans - then winning is a must. :D

[aaaae]

Add the fact that the rugby fans I know seem to regard themselves as somehow superior to us football low life .........and I'm afraid "I'm out "

In my experience I think this is true. It's a reflection of society. Middle class toffs think they are superior.

Edit - To be clear, I meant it's true that they think it, not that they are.

[aaaae]

Probably sums up what Rugby is really about.......it's just a macho, physical, brutal battle as far removed from skill as you can probably get. The bigger, fatter, violent or more freakish giants have an obvious advantage when it appears that the main aim would be to run into your opponent at the earliest opportunity. Apparently this 'mans' game is all about legitimate violence and it is little wonder there are so many serious injuries.
There is no worthwhile comparison to be made with football regards skill where controlling, passing, dribbling, shooting, heading and tackling with a ball are the primary objectives not physically assaulting your opponent to prevent him getting the ball.

Football is much more skilful than rugby and no doubt the superior game. But you can eat your cake and have it. Why not?

No wonder we often hear all this nonsense about having a beer while you're watching the rugby, probably the only way it is worth watching is when you're drunk

Nobody ever does this watching football?

Rugby will always be a minority sport.

It will be, but watching England play in the six nations is far more enjoyable than watching any of the shite doled out in the Premier League right now. Take Saturday for example, you could practically hear the sound of millions of breaking Welsh hearts as Eliot Daly ran in that late late winning try. Glorious. I thought you might enjoy that.

[Sound_out]

Add the fact that the rugby fans I know seem to regard themselves as somehow superior to us football low life .........and I'm afraid "I'm out "

In my experience I think this is true. It's a reflection of society. Middle class toffs think they are superior.

The average IQ of a rugby fan is undoubtedly higher than that of a football fan. I'm not calling all footy fans thickos but I think we can all agree that there is a proportion who are as thick as a whale omelet.

What you also don't get a rugby games:

Chavs
Crowd violence
Spitting mentalists
No beer at your seat
Horrible old hags shouting things like 'RIcketts ya ****'
Racism

:idea:

[Cully]

Probably sums up what Rugby is really about.......it's just a macho, physical, brutal battle as far removed from skill as you can probably get. The bigger, fatter, violent or more freakish giants have an obvious advantage when it appears that the main aim would be to run into your opponent at the earliest opportunity. Apparently this 'mans' game is all about legitimate violence and it is little wonder there are so many serious injuries.
There is no worthwhile comparison to be made with football regards skill where controlling, passing, dribbling, shooting, heading and tackling with a ball are the primary objectives not physically assaulting your opponent to prevent him getting the ball.

Football is much more skilful than rugby and no doubt the superior game. But you can eat your cake and have it. Why not?

No wonder we often hear all this nonsense about having a beer while you're watching the rugby, probably the only way it is worth watching is when you're drunk

Nobody ever does this watching football?

Rugby will always be a minority sport.

It will be, but watching England play in the six nations is far more enjoyable than watching any of the shite doled out in the Premier League right now. Take Saturday for example, you could practically hear the sound of millions of breaking Welsh hearts as Eliot Daly ran in that late late winning try. Glorious. I thought you might enjoy that.

Good reply aeiou, I don't disagree with any of that and re your last point, well I suppose that's why I prefer to watch lower league and non league football. There are obviously occasions when I do watch the Premiershite but I suppose half the time it's to provide satisfaction at seeing the band wagon clubs Man Utd/Chelsea/Liverpool etc or the latest 'little club done well' fairy story [because some Chinese/Russian twerp has invested billions in them :twisted: ] get beaten.

...............and Saturday, yes glorious indeed. I'd get my flag out and be a fan for a day for that :D

[EvenFlow]

Cracking replies, in both instances, aaaae. Just to play Football's Advocate, to keep things going and elaborate on some earlier stuff, I'd like to take this particular bit further-

Most scoring in rugby has evolved over time, whereas football is simple, put the ball in the net! Originally a try didn't even score you any points. It just gave you chance to have a free try at goal. You could only score points by kicking the ball between the posts. Rugby rules change all the time. Every season it seems there are two or three major rule changes, either for safety or to make the game more entertaining. It is confusing though.

The try-touch getting you a kick at the posts is something I could get on board with. I suppose my main gripe with the scoring is how disproportionate it seems to me. I realise I'm probably being a massive philistine here, but the territory, time, and endeavor involved in getting a try for five points vs the simplicity of a kick over the posts (penalty or drop goal) for three points is a really tough sell, particularly when you factor in that the conceding team boot back to the scoring team to have another go.

Ball in hand/set up on a prop to kick at unguarded posts from anywhere in the opposition half seems like a much better bet, percentages-wise, than trying to run tries in. Two kicks more than cancel out a try- massive philistine time again here, but as long as you kept Erhun Oztumer away from the rough stuff, Turkey could win the world cup without getting within 40 yards of any opponents' try-line. Something that rewards the level of endeavor- say, 1 point per penalty/drop goal with conceding team getting possession at the restart, and a kick for 5 points after a "try" (with only successful kicks scoring points, as historically) with the scoring team getting the ball back as a reward- would settle my non-plussed state, even if every Kiwi on Earth would likely want me dead.

[aaaae]

Cracking replies, in both instances, aaaae. Just to play Football's Advocate, to keep things going and elaborate on some earlier stuff, I'd like to take this particular bit further-

I'm an advocate of football too. There have been times in my life when I had to make a choice and I always chose football. But as I said why not do both? I joke that football is my wife and rugby is my mistress. Good fun for a fling now and again, but I always go back to the missus.

Most scoring in rugby has evolved over time, whereas football is simple, put the ball in the net! Originally a try didn't even score you any points. It just gave you chance to have a free try at goal. You could only score points by kicking the ball between the posts. Rugby rules change all the time. Every season it seems there are two or three major rule changes, either for safety or to make the game more entertaining. It is confusing though.

The try-touch getting you a kick at the posts is something I could get on board with. I suppose my main gripe with the scoring is how disproportionate it seems to me. I realise I'm probably being a massive philistine here, but the territory, time, and endeavor involved in getting a try for five points vs the simplicity of a kick over the posts (penalty or drop goal) for three points is a really tough sell, particularly when you factor in that the conceding team boot back to the scoring team to have another go.

Ball in hand/set up on a prop to kick at unguarded posts from anywhere in the opposition half seems like a much better bet, percentages-wise, than trying to run tries in. Two kicks more than cancel out a try- massive philistine time again here, but as long as you kept Erhun Oztumer away from the rough stuff, Turkey could win the world cup without getting within 40 yards of any opponents' try-line. Something that rewards the level of endeavor- say, 1 point per penalty/drop goal with conceding team getting possession at the restart, and a kick for 5 points after a "try" (with only successful kicks scoring points, as historically) with the scoring team getting the ball back as a reward- would settle my non-plussed state, even if every Kiwi on Earth would likely want me dead.

One of the most interesting parts of the game is when teams turn down a certain 3 points for the chance at a possible 7. Most of the time they come a cropper and very often it demonstrates those rugby boys don't have a lot going on between the ears. Nice but dim. In fact a lot of play in rugby demonstrates that they are not as clever as they (and Sound_out) like to think they are. When it comes to game management, by and large they are clueless. They make footballers look like Einstein. Take Wales making the decision to never kick the ball into touch on Saturday. Absolutely clueless. Brain dead.

The 3 points have become more and more important as defences have become better and better. Over time the value of a try has been increased point by point from 0, to 1 until 1891, to 2 until 1894, to 3 until 1970, to 4 until 1991, to 5 today. Probably time to increase it again. Or decrease the 3 points to 2 for a kicked goal.

The scoring team getting the ball back is another interesting one. A team needing two scores to win a game, get the first score and then they have the ball kicked to them, giving them the chance to go death or glory. Much more interesting than the winning team taking the ball to the corner isn't it?

If I have one bugbear in rugby today, it is scrum collapses. I am certain that most of them are deliberate, effectively teams trying to cheat. It might be time to go to a 6 man (or less) scrum. But then again Brian Moore is convinced that if referees applied the laws (including crooked feed) all would be well and I think he has a point.

[Welsh_Saddler]

If I can take you up on one small point - the scoring team isn't guaranteed to get the ball back, surely? The team which concedes do have to re-start the game by kicking the ball, but it only has to go the 10 yards (or metres these days) and that gives the "kickers" an opportunity to compete for the lofted ball.

(I think) :mrgreen:

[Sound_out]

If I can take you up on one small point - the scoring team isn't guaranteed to get the ball back, surely? The team which concedes do have to re-start the game by kicking the ball, but it only has to go the 10 yards (or metres these days) and that gives the "kickers" an opportunity to compete for the lofted ball.

(I think) :mrgreen:

This is correct but in doing so the kicking team also give away territory. A high deep kick which the forwards can chase and put the catcher under pressure is a good tactic. Even with the receivers gsining possession they are deep in their own half which can lead to them kicking back in any case. With a 10 metre kick there is greater competition for the ball but no guarantees and you can lose 30 metres in territory.

[Welsh_Saddler]

If I can take you up on one small point - the scoring team isn't guaranteed to get the ball back, surely? The team which concedes do have to re-start the game by kicking the ball, but it only has to go the 10 yards (or metres these days) and that gives the "kickers" an opportunity to compete for the lofted ball.

(I think) :mrgreen:

This is correct but in doing so the kicking team also give away territory. A high deep kick which the forwards can chase and put the catcher under pressure is a good tactic. Even with the receivers gsining possession they are deep in their own half which can lead to them kicking back in any case. With a 10 metre kick there is greater competition for the ball but no guarantees and you can lose 30 metres in territory.

Shouldn't you be at Villa Park watching an ex-Walsall player stuff your team?

[Super Gabor]

If I can take you up on one small point - the scoring team isn't guaranteed to get the ball back, surely? The team which concedes do have to re-start the game by kicking the ball, but it only has to go the 10 yards (or metres these days) and that gives the "kickers" an opportunity to compete for the lofted ball.

(I think) :mrgreen:

This is correct but in doing so the kicking team also give away territory. A high deep kick which the forwards can chase and put the catcher under pressure is a good tactic. Even with the receivers gsining possession they are deep in their own half which can lead to them kicking back in any case. With a 10 metre kick there is greater competition for the ball but no guarantees and you can lose 30 metres in territory.

Shouldn't you be at Villa Park watching an ex-Walsall player stuff your team?

:lol: Super Tommy Bradshaw.

[Sound_out]

If I can take you up on one small point - the scoring team isn't guaranteed to get the ball back, surely? The team which concedes do have to re-start the game by kicking the ball, but it only has to go the 10 yards (or metres these days) and that gives the "kickers" an opportunity to compete for the lofted ball.

(I think) :mrgreen:

This is correct but in doing so the kicking team also give away territory. A high deep kick which the forwards can chase and put the catcher under pressure is a good tactic. Even with the receivers gsining possession they are deep in their own half which can lead to them kicking back in any case. With a 10 metre kick there is greater competition for the ball but no guarantees and you can lose 30 metres in territory.

Shouldn't you be at Villa Park watching an ex-Walsall player stuff your team?

Possibly, but I'm preferring to educate you yer dirty old pervert! :wink: :mrgreen:

[PT]

Rugby is awful. As are a lot of the people who watch it. Luckily for them, the people who set the law and the institutions that apply it tend to like "rugger" too so any boisterousness is attributed to tipsy high spirits by otherwise solid chaps rather than malevolent drunken loutishness by feral thugs.

[Exile]

Rugby is awful. As are a lot of the people who watch it. Luckily for them, the people who set the law and the institutions that apply it tend to like "rugger" too so any boisterousness is attributed to tipsy high spirits by otherwise solid chaps rather than malevolent drunken loutishness by feral thugs.

I enjoy rugby, both Union and league. The above double standard is the ultimate expression of the class system in the uk.

[PT]

Rugby is awful. As are a lot of the people who watch it. Luckily for them, the people who set the law and the institutions that apply it tend to like "rugger" too so any boisterousness is attributed to tipsy high spirits by otherwise solid chaps rather than malevolent drunken loutishness by feral thugs.

I enjoy rugby, both Union and league. The above double standard is the ultimate expression of the class system in the uk.

Indeed. "What chance have you got against a tie and a crest?".

In terms of the game itself, I get to watch a few Rugby Union internationals each year. The thing with Union is that the ball disappears beneath a pile of heaving bodies for long periods. Often this will include when scoring a try. As a spectator that's pretty awful. Occasionally in football there will be a load of bodies in the box where you can't quite make out how the ball went in, but in rugby you are very often blind to the ball. Doesn't seem to matter too much to the often completely inebriated spectators who it seems would happily watch a fifteen-a-side tug of war. "Heeeeave".

[Exile]

Rugby is awful. As are a lot of the people who watch it. Luckily for them, the people who set the law and the institutions that apply it tend to like "rugger" too so any boisterousness is attributed to tipsy high spirits by otherwise solid chaps rather than malevolent drunken loutishness by feral thugs.

I enjoy rugby, both Union and league. The above double standard is the ultimate expression of the class system in the uk.

Indeed. "What chance have you got against a tie and a crest?".

In terms of the game itself, I get to watch a few Rugby Union internationals each year. The thing with Union is that the ball disappears beneath a pile of heaving bodies for long periods. Often this will include when scoring a try. As a spectator that's pretty awful. Occasionally in football there will be a load of bodies in the box where you can't quite make out how the ball went in, but in rugby you are very often blind to the ball. Doesn't seem to matter too much to the often completely inebriated spectators who it seems would happily watch a fifteen-a-side tug of war. "Heeeeave".

I prefer both forms of rugby on the screen, where I can abuse the referee from a visual position of knowledge! Unless it's NZ vs Australia. That particular derby is great live.

[aaaae]

Rugby is awful. As are a lot of the people who watch it. Luckily for them, the people who set the law and the institutions that apply it tend to like "rugger" too so any boisterousness is attributed to tipsy high spirits by otherwise solid chaps rather than malevolent drunken loutishness by feral thugs.

Also at rugby there is no sign of the overtly aggressive stewards or coppers, who more often than not, will start trouble in an otherwise calm football crowd.

The differences between football and rugby are no doubt a microcosm of our society. One group of privileged comfortable middle classers, who believe to their core that they are better in every way than another group, without actually knowing anything about them.

A good recent example being Labour MP writing off a bloke as racist, without even clapping eyes on him, let alone speaking with him, because he happens to have a white van on his drive and an England flag up. For all she knew he could have been black!

[aaaae]

Doesn't seem to matter too much to the often completely inebriated spectators who it seems would happily watch a fifteen-a-side tug of war. "Heeeeave".

Not that a maul is particularly entertaining to watch, but it is fun to be in. Do you know the best way to get a ball off someone clinging to it for dear life in the middle of a maul? You don't try an pull their arms away, it's nigh on impossible. You get hold of their little finger.

[Sound_out]

The differences between football and rugby are no doubt a microcosm of our society. One group of privileged comfortable middle classers, who believe to their core that they are better in every way than another group, without actually knowing anything about them.

I don't think rugby fans think they are better than another group. You said the same about golf players. It seems to me that you have issues with people who you perceive as being better off in life. :idea:

[swampysaddler]

The differences between football and rugby are no doubt a microcosm of our society. One group of privileged comfortable middle classers, who believe to their core that they are better in every way than another group, without actually knowing anything about them.

I don't think rugby fans think they are better than another group. You said the same about golf players. It seems to me that you have issues with people who you perceive as being better off in life. :idea:

Soundy go back to your own corner and have a cup of tea with ISIS because they are mis-unsterstood.

[aaaae]

The differences between football and rugby are no doubt a microcosm of our society. One group of privileged comfortable middle classers, who believe to their core that they are better in every way than another group, without actually knowing anything about them.

I don't think rugby fans think they are better than another group.

I've played in something like 300 rugby matches. I love the sport. I have no axe to grind. If you don't think rugby fans think they superior to football fans, you are delusional. But then that's nothing new is it? I think it's more likely you haven't got a clue. How much time have you spent playing rugby?

You said the same about golf players.

I didn't, I said that golf clubs are sexist and racist. Which they demonstrably are. I've never found rugby fans to be particularly sexist or racist. In fact generally speaking, I've found them to be less so than football fans.

I don't think rugby fans think they are better than another group. You said the same about golf players. It seems to me that you have issues with people who you perceive as being better off in life. :idea:

I'll try to remember that when I'm down at Twickenham next weekend watching England play Italy. Since you're such an expert I guess you'll be there too.

[Sound_out]

I've played in something like 300 rugby matches. I love the sport. I have no axe to grind. If you don't think rugby fans think they superior to football fans, you are delusional. But then that's nothing new is it? I think it's more likely you haven't got a clue. How much time have you spent playing rugby?

I've played from the age of six and my last game was for Willenhall against Walsall at 18. In all my time playing and watching rugby I've never once felt rugby fans feel they are above football fans. I think this is a bit of an inferiority complex and you create what you feel. :idea:

I didn't, I said that golf clubs are sexist and racist. Which they demonstrably are. I've never found rugby fans to be particularly sexist or racist. In fact generally speaking, I've found them to be less so than football fans.

Clubs aren't sexist of racist. I think we worked out that something like 0.0004% of cubs worldwide didn't allow women members and I'm yet to know of a club that isn't multi-cultural. If I remember correctly your were also complaining about players attire and how you thought they were arrogant. I could use my Google searchy thing to find out what was actually debated.

I'll try to remember that when I'm down at Twickenham next weekend watching England play Italy. Since you're such an expert I guess you'll be there too.

Sadly, attending Twickenham doesn't make you an expert, I'm more impressed with your 300 games! I'm not going but will be watching in the pub.

[chunkster]

I used to play for old oaks in rushall, just down the walsall rd, i was introduced to the game at a late age but took to it like a duck to water. i played as a hooker but the rules were the hardest thing i had to learn. i still struggle now lol. It was the camaraderie and respect on and off the pitch that astounded me, a proper mans game :wink: