QuoteNothing outside the Indo and a couple other rags that print anything a celebrity says on twitter. There was a bit of commotion online though. Obviously would have been a much bigger deal if it was a footballer.
Is there any real controversy at home over Cian Healy's tweet? Would there be if it came from a footballer?
Nothing outside the Indo and a couple other rags that print anything a celebrity says on twitter. There was a bit of commotion online though. Obviously would have been a much bigger deal if it was a footballer.
Ryan Tunnicliffe tweeted something about 'our own' Patrick Bamford after the playoff final. There wasn't a major fuss about it I don't think but it was reported in the tabloids, at least, and he was sanctioned by the F.A. You could dispute the respective statuses of Healy and Tunnicliffe within their sports I suppose, if it was Wayne Rooney I'm sure we would have heard more. Tunnicliffe's was a lot more hostile and vulgar than Healy's also to be fair, I think Healy's was just incredibly naive and silly to be honest.
Ryan Tunnicliffe charged with aggravated misconduct by The FA for tweet aimed at Patrick Bamford
AT THE end of big games these days, something different happens. When the final whistle blows, player shake hands, hug and congratulate — their own teammates. I believe the All Blacks started it, and it has caught on. I hate it.Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Through all rugby history, when the whistle blew, you first sought out the opposition, especially your direct opponent. Now it seems that the players with whom you live and train together, whom you will see all evening and at pool recovery sessions in the morning, cannot be left alone for 30 seconds after the game in order to shake hands with somebody wearing a different jersey to maintain one of rugby’s core traditions.
Straight after Munster’s defeat at the hands of Glasgow in the Guinness Pro-12 final, Paul O’Connell led his men to shake their opponents’ hands. Remember Chris Robshaw’s England forming a circle to share a prayer with Samoa after the autumn international? Graceful moments, becoming so rare.
This handshake business is only a small thing, of course, except that it isn’t. It is an example of the demise of a set of behaviours. Rugby believes itself to be a sport apart, a source of sporting and moral goodness. We have been practising our superior air since the downfall of Fifa was revealed, meaning those involved in rugby can look down our noses at football. Diving? Cult of manager? Silly salaries? Abusive crowds? Blatter?
But who are we to talk? And why, on days off, would I now prefer to go to a football match? There is no major crisis in rugby yet, but a process of decline in ethos and behaviour is happening. The ethical and moral example it sets is not nearly as strong as it was.
Let us first set out the moral platform on which rugby is deservedly built. Lord Holmes, the former Paralympic swimmer and now disciplinary commissioner at the Equality & Human Rights Commission, said of the Aviva Premiership initiative to widen the appeal of the game among women and girls and black and ethnic communities: “Rugby is a fantastic place for bringing people together, whatever their backgrounds, developing skills and providing great health benefits . . . regardless of their ability, gender or social background.”
I agree wholeheartedly. Hand on heart, in 30 years I have never heard at a match or in a clubhouse a single racist or homophobic comment or denial of the right of women to play the sport — and I absolve the women’s game from my accusations of decline in behaviours. When some idiot apparently abused Nigel Owens, the referee, during a game he was shopped by those around him and banned from Twickenham.
Trawl round social media for a few minutes and you could find stories of rugby people helping dispossessed Rwandans, Calcutta street kids, Iranian girls. Or you could find the clip of the great charge of Ethan Plumb, who suffers from Down’s syndrome, scoring a try for his North Walian school for whom he had always dreamt of playing, to be mobbed by his teammates. Or you could have read of firm friendships between Leicester fans and the glorious Gabhru Panjab de Bhangra dance group, who elevated the pre-match at the last home game of the season
But things are crumbing round the edges. Grace in defeat? Have you noticed how few teams in the professional ranks have actually lost a big game lately, even when the opposition inconveniently happened to score more points? The evidence is that the All Blacks, for example, and their followers will, in the event of a defeat in the World Cup, blame the referee and try and fail to hide the arrogance which surrounds them.
Recent defeats involving Ireland against Wales in Cardiff and Connacht and Ulster in European and domestic events have all been wrongly blamed on refereeing. Remember the old days of respectful quiet when only the captain could talk to the referee, and then only in breaks in play? Remember the rule that anybody who decided to backchat would be marched back 10 yards and, if necessary, 20 or 30 yards? Now we have a cacophony of appeals, admonishment, bogus hurt and ranting from players directed straight at the referee. Sickeningly, we see players mimicking the act of the showing of cards to get opponents sent from the field (that should be a yellow-card offence in itself).
Some referees feel the need to spend ages explaining themselves as play continues. Why? The 10-metre rule still applies. Why not use it? Blow your whistle, tell them to shut up.
Sadly, the cult of the manager in football now has a growing equivalent in rugby. You always feel from the post-match reactions of the likes of Sir Ian McGeechan, Stuart Lancaster, Gregor Townsend, Jim Mallinder, Warren Gatland, Mike Ford, Michael Cheika and a few others, that they prefer the coaching side of the job to being seen as a dominating lord of the club, nation and the sport.
However, others revel in their positions and their self-importance. Top coaches now dominate the law-making procedures, the way the game is played, and try to dominate refereeing appointments and the officials themselves. They try to interfere with media relations, usually by strangling them. They try to erase character from players, because engaging or erratic character traits are drummed out of players in favour of the dullest conformity.
As for anyone acting for the good of world rugby, or at least wider rugby, as was always the sport’s first tenet, forget it.
In the World Rugby U20 tournament being played in Italy, the three best players from the Samoa squad in the 2014 tournament are back — playing for New Zealand. When was the last time a Tier One nation did something selfless or beneficial for a Tier Two nation? Rugby used to be a proud global brotherhood, but now self-interest rampages
During the Glasgow-Ulster Pro-12 semi-final playoff it seemed that Glasgow’s Niko Matawalu exaggerated the effects of opponents making contact with him by diving to the ground. Earlier in the season, Yoann Huget, the French full-back, dived to the ground as if shot when playing for Toulouse against Bath.
Openness has become secrecy. Referees must be assessed and criticised, but not as an excuse for defeat, and the bad atmosphere would be helped if referees poked their heads up after games to explain their controversial decisions. But now, from officials in all parts of the game, secrecy is the norm. How little can they tell the media, and get away with it? Another of rugby’s most treasured aspects has also died. It used to be a game for all shapes and sizes, but it is now only for monsters, and unless things change, even in the tiny age groups, it will only be the big lumps who start to play, let alone continue through puberty. Largely, the game is clean, drug-free but less forgiving, more angry, less fun, more graceless, less open, too serious.
Rugby still constitutes the joy of sporting and social life for millions. I could never do justice to what the sport has meant to me, my family and friends and working life. But it is going in the wrong direction, and everybody, not just World Rugby, needs to attend to restoring what it has always meant. How awful if we find in the future, the only difference between rugby and football is that football does not pretend to be anything else.
20 odd years a pro sport versus 120 years of football as a pro sport. Professionalism changes things. And for what it's worth, footballers shake hands and hug after games and they also do charity work. Iconic image of Barcelona applauding the Juventus team up to collect their medals last week, Xavi and Pirlo etc. There's good and bad in all sports and in all groups of people. Simple as.
No, rugby people are better than regular people.
I find it true to some respects that there is a change in Union though the last few years though. Anmd yes professionalsim has been the driver of that.
But to be honest, I'm getting mighty f****d off by most sports nowadays.
Do you ever just feel that the "joy" is seeping out of it all?
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Ya stutts ye thick did ye not take in any of the article.
Give me a thick ignorant football person over a thick ignorant rugby person any day. At least the football person won't think they are something their not with an air about themselves.
I'm a bloke,I'm an ocker
And I really love your knockers,I'm a labourer by day,
I **** up all me pay,Watching footy on TV,
Just feed me more VB,Just pour my beer,And get my smokes, And go away
"Notions", Paul. "Notions".
At the moment Rugby is going through a phase of Scrumhalfs box kicking (Rugbys equivalent of hoof ball )
there is only so much of it you can watch.
Or Crash Ball up the middle. Only so much of that you can watch.
Rugby as a spectacle seems to have suffered from the enormous increase in fitness from the Players. Where has all the room gone.
The size of Pitchs really needs to be increased.(obviously not practical)
Would Rugby/ Soccer be improved as a spectacle if it were played on a bigger pitch. ? ?
Thats cheating big timeand there is a big difference between 15 and 7.
On a more serious note I have thought that any new stadiums being built should have the biggest sized pitch (For Soccer and rugby) legally allowed.
What sport isn't going in the wrong direction though? The Boston Red Sox sat the Kung Fu Panda bc they caught him using social media during the game, liking the pics of some Ho. He makes like 150 million. the fans care more than the players in most situations. The sports landscape is unsustainable.
No Somos muchos pero estamos locos.
Or in football reduce the number of players to 10 or 9 but I suppose that makes a sending off too catastrophic?
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
radical change has been called for several times in the past but history has shown that the best changes are usually small. Football is miles better without the GK back pass and without brutal tackles from behind. But calls for bigger goals were rightly shot down. Sports evolve and go through phases. An attacking style might win out one year and then a defensive tactic will become common to negate it, so the attacking style evolves further. That's how it goes. Look how different WC14 was to WC10.
Rugby is a bit different. It's a sport where size counts so players are just getting bigger, to the detriment of their well being and, in my opinion, to the detriment of the game. Rugby laws change more frequently so the game adapts to the laws, often with unintended consequences, prompting more law changes. The 2007 RWC saw teams like Argentina master the kick and chase routine. It was more beneficial to pressurise an isolated opponent into releasing early than it was to try and work your way into territory.
I too think the box kick from the 9 is too prevalent in rugby these days, and I think Ireland over rely on this and the high corner kick. In my opinion possession is kicked away a little too frivolously in rugby, even if a team is good at retrieving the high ball. I do wonder, though, whether Schmidt has more in his tactical locker than he is letting on and if he is saving it for the RWC.
Actually, a rule which greatly helped the game (despite Andy Gray seeing no logic in it when he used to commentate) was a player having to leave the field when he received treatment. Prior to that the number of players pretending to be hurt and wasting time as a consequence was a joke. I note sometimes that referees now delay waving back players when they deem the injury to have been a feign.
Issues to be dealt with (ignoring technology):
(a) crowding around a referee (only the captain should be allowed address the ref and a yellow for everyone else swarming around).
(b) diving in the box. Ref gets these wrong 50% of the time. Review by 4th official and red card for such offences.
(c) no sending off for foul by last man back if offence is in the box, as the penalty is sufficient punishment.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
(d) players have 10 secs to get off the pitch when being substituted
(e) refs actually add-on wasted time arising during injury time
i think it was osarusan who came up with a clever version of (c) in the past.
(A) I agree with to an extent but I also like a bit of backchat in football. I played both football and rugby and liked being able to talk to the ref and how a good ref would give a firm bit of chat back. Crowding around a ref is bad alright but I don't really think a yellow to everyone else is enforceable.
(B) The Times ran a great piece last year on video technology in general and in particular a Dutch experiment conducted by a guy called Van Meenen. It involved a fref watching the game in a private room live, real time. He had license to flag big calls: limited to stuff like offside, penalties, red cards and goals. He had 15 seconds to intervene. If the 15 seconds passes the extra ref can't intervene. His findings were that unassisted refs get 95pc of big calls right, but using this system it's 97pc. There will always be error or argument. After all, a foul in football is defined as "if in the consideration of the referee....". In rugby it's more mechanical: breakdown infringement, knock-on, forward pass. A lot of rugby fans now complain about everything being referred to TMO. Some games have had 20 minutes of TMO review. I even think some full backs these days exaggerate their jump under a high ball these days in order to maximise the chance of a TMO-friendly airborne tip tackle.
Not all fouls or offences in football will be unanimously agreed even by experienced refs, so I think the Dutch system makes sense, as it'll probably eliminate the really wrong decisions but still leave the ref in control of a fluent game in real time.
I think this is the article I read but it requires a subscription which I don't have. Paddy G?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/...cle4330357.ece
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 19/06/2015 at 4:44 PM.
What if the goals were a little taller height wise but the same length? Not sure what they could do for the girls, watching the WWC is brutal. No wonder Canada was the only country to bid.
No Somos muchos pero estamos locos.
I think the goal should be made bigger. One ball higher and two balls wider. A free Kick should be allowed to be taken quickly so long as it is behind where the penalty is given. This would work in Soccer Rugby, and Gaa with no interference from the opposing teams from the distance where the Free kick was given (I am sure that is 100% clear)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks