Rare insight & understanding from an unexpected source

The tackling team is still allowed to contest for the ball in Rugby. League long ago gave up any pretence of being a contest for the ball.

Hass wrote:

JGK wrote:To summarise:

Rugby is becoming good because it is moving to be more like rugby league.

That's what it sounded like to me as well. Rugby League slowly but surely evolved to give the team with the ball more certainty of retaining possession upon being tackled. Rugby Union is heading in the same direction.

What is it with leeeegies? The Tri Nations are being played in accordance with the intent of the Laws. There is absolutely zero thought of it becoming leeeeg like. All that's happened is a restoration of the planned balance of rights between attacker & defender at the tackle.

Mick Sawyer wrote:
What is it with leeeegies?

It's not their fault. It's just that western suburbs/Ipswich mentality

G.Wood wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:
What is it with leeeegies?

It's not their fault. It's just that western suburbs/Ipswich mentality

More like the game and its devotees belong with gen Y twats & Pakistan cricket.

well there's that too

Mick.

It's pretty simple. Whether it is a restoration or not, increasing the certainty of a team retaining possession at the breakdown is making the game more like Rugby League.

There's no shame in admitting it. Doing so won't result in two players disappearing or line-outs vanishing into the ether. The principle is the same in both codes. Rugby League has embraced it whole-heartedly, so much so that I believe it has gone too far. I pine for the day when Rugby League restores contested scrums by forcing referees to interpret the rules correctly.

If League were to make such a change it would be making the game more like Rugby Union, even though the change would merely be a "restoration".

Both codes have a lot to learn from each other, in both what to embrace and what to avoid. I think Union has more to learn from League (and that includes League's mistakes) because League has been trough this evolutionary process before.

And I'm not saying evolution is inherently good mind you. I'm just saying it happens.

Hass wrote:I pine for the day when Rugby League restores contested scrums by forcing referees to interpret the rules correctly.

It'll never happen, Hass. Even though it's been #1 on the list of things the fans want in surveys galore for the past decade.

G.Wood wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

JKLever wrote:Have Aus learnt how to scrum yet?

Did you read the article or are you just tossing off?

It's JKL, surely a redundant question

Hey don't foist your lack of pie and the need to control your fapping onto me!

Hass wrote:Mick.

It's pretty simple. Whether it is a restoration or not, increasing the certainty of a team retaining possession at the breakdown is making the game more like Rugby League.

There's no shame in admitting it. Doing so won't result in two players disappearing or line-outs vanishing into the ether. The principle is the same in both codes. Rugby League has embraced it whole-heartedly, so much so that I believe it has gone too far. I pine for the day when Rugby League restores contested scrums by forcing referees to interpret the rules correctly.

If League were to make such a change it would be making the game more like Rugby Union, even though the change would merely be a "restoration".

Both codes have a lot to learn from each other, in both what to embrace and what to avoid. I think Union has more to learn from League (and that includes League's mistakes) because League has been trough this evolutionary process before.

And I'm not saying evolution is inherently good mind you. I'm just saying it happens.

Hass, thoughtful response. I have difficulty accepting the premise. To my mind it's akin to saying that Cathy Freeman became more like a marathoner when she moved up to the 400. Cheers.

I fondly remember the annual 'staff v students' rugby match at my school...

Our PE teacher was Steve Knight - dual international built like brick sheethouse winger. When we did rugger for PE he would join in complete with ankle boots with 1 inch steel studs.

He wasn't all there and didn't hold back. Truly petrifying

We had Geoff Richards, who played three Tests for Australia. It was much the same thing. Scary as all f*ck.

Although Knighty made up for it by bringing his wife to a swimming carnival. She spent the entire day sunbathing in a crocheted bikini.

If only they had mobile phones/cameras in those days. We had to make do with an etch-a-sketch

Probably the odd embarrassing moment for a bunch of teenage boys in budgie smugglers as well no doubt.

I fondly remember the annual 'staff v students' rugby match at my school...

Wished I could say we had that chance to bash the bastwerds.

Had to make do with 4 bouncers an over in the cricket match.

JGK wrote:Probably the odd embarrassing moment for a bunch of teenage boys in budgie smugglers as well no doubt.

That may have been her motivation.

Not much I pine for about the old days, but a slightly aged crocheted on the right body qualifies .........

PeterCS wrote:Greenwood is forthright in his views, but also entertaining (if bordering on eerie).

This is an example. *EXAMPLE HERE*

It may be "typically English" to be able to send yourself up and do it (or used to be), but his joking has surreal elements to it.

It's a good read pete.