Rugby League really gives me the shits

[mxyzptlk]

Was it not used in WW1 as an anticeptic

It's not antiseptic -- urine doesn't kill germs, and there is bacteria in urine that can cause issues (bladder infections). It was probably just better than other stuff available on the battlefield, and water was precious.

I know it also softens leather, and miners would piss on their hands and rub them together to help get rid of callouses. It can be useful. But probably not as a refreshing drink.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Rugby league has always been scared to use the sin bin (yellow card) and particularly sending someone off (red card) because they have the opinion that it will ruin the game by having too much impact on the result.

I hear commentators complaining about how there's so little space on the field -- a few cards here and there could solve that problem.

 

[Train Without a Station]

BH, that's NRL culture to a tee. When SBW was charged with an offence (Shoulder charge possibly) there was uproar that the game shouldn't be robbed of one of there great players over it. Complete disregard of the foul play.

mxyzptlk, you can talk about violent culture, but the Australian contact codes have a lower level of crowd violence then the A-League and significantly lower than European Football. Why is that?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I don't see our sporting culture as particularly violent. There are relatively few issues with crowd behaviour here and most of the sporting codes come down pretty hard on thuggery on the pitch. It wasn't always the case, but community standards seemed to have pushed the football codes along to a degree I think. The thrust of marketing and participation campaigns is almost always around families getting involved in the game and a violent image would hamper that I think. League is one of the few exceptions in that a certain cohort of the fan base want to go back to shoulder charges, tip tackles, biff etc. Not being a follower of the game these days (I used to watch both codes) I'm not sure how mainstream those views are.

 

[Scoey]

That's a good way to put it. So is your argument that the game/players are acting up for a perceived demographic? Is there a sense that if they don't take those cheap digs they're afraid the game will be seen as soft and they'll lose viewers? If so, to what? What other sport is on Aussie TV as much as NRL that scratches that violence itch?

I don' t think that the players act up to it; not consciously anyway. It's a bit of a chicken and the egg scenario I think and I can't quite put my finger on what came first. The tendency from honest hard footy, to grubby cheap rubbish, or the expectation shift of the fans.

I think that society has moved away from young men having any sort of honour in the way they conduct themselves both in general or when physically challenged to thuggish behaviour where physically damaging and hurting another person is the prize and it matters not how underhanded or cowardly that end is achieved. I don't know what the catalyst was for this shift but I believe that the state of affairs of Rugby League (the most recent SOO game being the prime example) is a product of this change.

I'm going to sound a lot older than I am (35) now when I say that I don't recall it being like that when I was younger. You never, hit a bloke from behind, hit/kicked a guy when he's down or ganged up on another. You just didn't. To do so was to be a coward. If you fought, you fought fair.

How this relates to RL is curious. Society in general is opposed to violence and we are generally outraged by it. When an act of violence is perpetuated these days, it's often videoed and the more gratuitous the better. It's then played on TV and while the words that accompany the footage condemn it, the sheer fact that it is given it's 10 seconds of fame glorify it to some. People are outraged and sickened yet they can't look away. Next time a fight video is in the news, they click on it too.

League is still governed by and large by the old boys club. Dinosaurs of the game that feel it is at its best when it is played hard. They tell the young blokes that they have to go out and hurt their opposition. This message is lost in translation and today's generation of players are left frustrated by an opposition to violence but a message to 'hurt'.

The game, it's players and it's fans are getting frustrated. A reluctance to crack down on foul play for fear it will ruin the game is ironically what is frustrating all and sundry and ruining the game. Frustration leads to anger and niggle leads to violence. Rugby League really gives me the shits.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

An interesting viewpoint Scoey and one that I'm not entirely unsympathetic too.

One of the things I note when watching footage of old Aussie Rules (mainly the WAFL and VFL) and rugby games (NSW v QLD, Wallaby tests) is how little actual thuggery there is in those sports now. Back in ye olde days before the copious video cameras and multiple refs/umpires, there would be all sorts of behind the play action. Not any more though, the consequences are too great. I doubt very much we'd see the kind of biff now that led to Steve Finnane breaking Graham Price's jaw or Dermott Brereton having his ribs broken by Mark Yeates in a grand final before the game even started. Even league is cleaner than it used to be.

I'm leery of the "kids these days" arguments, because that's been going on since the time of Plato.

 

[mxyzptlk]

mxyzptlk, you can talk about violent culture, but the Australian contact codes have a lower level of crowd violence then the A-League and significantly lower than European Football. Why is that?

No idea -- it may be a soccer thing. An acquaintance of mine did his master's thesis on soccer violence, which always seems to be a proxy for political violence. Whether it's ethnic differences, religious differences, or historical differences, the places where hooliganism seems to erupt seems to come from those populations having unresolved issues with each other, not having good avenues in daily social life to deal with them, and using football as a proxy to work them out. Then group think comes into play. (If you're into that sort of thing, there's a psychiatrist from Cyprus who specializes in group psychology and political tension, Vamik Volkan -- he's excellent for getting a handle on where something like crowd violence emerges from and why it occurs. He's been brought in to help with Northern Ireland negotiations, Greek-Turkish talks on Cyprus, Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, Croatia, Georgia, South Ossetia, that sort of thing.)

The other side is (like I mentioned above) that maybe the contact code crowds vicariously enjoy violence at a distance. They want to see it from a safe place, but aren't as willing to get up close to it -- whether that be ringside, where it's more real, or amongst themselves.

The difference -- at least in how I'm looking at it -- is in the media presentations. You don't see the EPL promoting their game by showing fights, not least because there's enough trouble with hooliganism in the stands. But as I understand it, rugby league's advertising packages used to feature fights on the field.

From an outsider's perspective, when I see someone take a whack at someone else on a field, I think that's not part of the game, knock it off and get back to it -- channel that aggression into winning something instead of breaking your knuckle. But what I hear from NRL commentators is stuff like he's just having a good hard crack and showing he's up for the game. Which makes me think "wrong game." Maybe they should wear mma gloves.

And just to be clear, I'm in no way saying the U.S. is any better in this regard. We may not have as much violence in our pro sports (and outside of hockey our media would only frown upon it), but we now have spree killings about every fortnight. We can be a horribly violent tribe, and we don't express it very constructively.

 

[Braveheart81]

An interesting viewpoint Scoey and one that I'm not entirely unsympathetic too.

One of the things I note when watching footage of old Aussie Rules (mainly the WAFL and VFL) and rugby games (NSW v QLD, Wallaby tests) is how little actual thuggery there is in those sports now. Back in ye olde days before the copious video cameras and multiple refs/umpires, there would be all sorts of behind the play action. Not any more though, the consequences are too great. I doubt very much we'd see the kind of biff now that led to Steve Finnane breaking Graham Price's jaw or Dermott Brereton having his ribs broken by Mark Yeates in a grand final before the game even started. Even league is cleaner than it used to be.

I'm leery of the "kids these days" arguments, because that's been going on since the time of Plato.

I agree with this.

I can't comment on people fighting dirtier now as Scoey suggested above but there has absolutely been a decrease in violence in sport and society in general over time.

Thankfully a culture of going out, drinking and getting into fights is continually decreasing.

Maybe the king hit culture comes out of the fact that people wanting to fight find it harder to find someone who wants to fight them?

 

[It is what it is]

I have a theory about aggression levels and the interchange rules in league.
Over time they have gone from using reserve graders as replacements, to then fresh replacements, to today where they allow interchange reserves.
Rugby League used to involve fatigue, and challenge every individual and team's ability to handle it. There has never been a truer saying than "Fatigue makes cowards of us all".
Whoever came on as a replacement back then had already played at least half a game or more earlier.
Players knew they had to pace themselves to last 80 mins and so whatever aggression they exhibited couldn't possibly be sustained for a full 80 mins. Games settled down as combatants all worked through the softening up period together (same players on both teams), and then played football. In other words you could depend on fatigue to restrain aggression.
Today with I think it's 10 interchanges, many players, particularly the bulkier and more aggressive players, no longer have to play 80 mins.
They come out of the blocks playing in 15-20 min bursts of intense aggression knowing they're going to get a rest, so the game doesn't ever settle as up to 20 changes occur over the 80 mins.
The is reflected by SOO benches becoming 3 forwards and 1 back or even 4 forwards and 0 backs.
Player welfare is important but rugby league has lost some of its DNA by taking fatigue out of play and received increased aggression in return.

 

[mxyzptlk]

League is still governed by and large by the old boys club. Dinosaurs of the game that feel it is at its best when it is played hard. They tell the young blokes that they have to go out and hurt their opposition. This message is lost in translation and today's generation of players are left frustrated by an opposition to violence but a message to 'hurt'.

That almost makes me feel some sympathy for them.

Some other people in this thread (or maybe elsewhere) have mentioned the shift away from socially acceptable violence in Australia, and that it seems relatively recent, like maybe in the last 20 years or so. Maybe the tension with foul play in RL is symptomatic of some larger social growing pains. But I'd be willing to bet that shift occurred with economic growth and globalism; as Australia became more connected to the rest of the world, it's trying to put on its best face and fit into the newer global neighborhood. That might mean less oblivion drinking, toning down what was once seen as socially acceptable violence, and finding different faces to represent your country outside of Paul Hogan, Men at Work and Foster's. Sport is massive there, and league is the one market Australia has cornered that has a small international reach. So league ends up seeming caught between being Strayan and being part of New Australia.

 

[Scoey]

It's funny isn't it. You guys are probably spot on to be honest. It may have more to do with the fact that every single incident that occurs on a footy field is able to be viewed in stunning High Def at super slow speeds. It's a perception thing perhaps.

You've both given me pause to reflect and back when I was a pup, coming into playing with the big boys in seniors, it was nothing to just get punched in the face in a ruck/scrum but for some reason I didn't/don't view that as violence. The guys I played with would tell me with a wry grin that it was just footy and you'd have a beer and a laugh with the guy that belted you after the game. Wierd.

 

[mxyzptlk]

it was nothing to just get punched in the face in a ruck/scrum but for some reason I didn't/don't view that as violence. The guys I played with would tell me with a wry grin that it was just footy and you'd have a beer and a laugh with the guy that belted you after the game. Wierd.

That sounds like "legal pain." I didn't have rugby where I grew up, but I wrestled up into college (real wrestling, not that I should have to explain that). There's lots of things that we couldn't legally get away with (some you'd see in an mma cage), but there were also lots of other little things we could get away with that was called "legal pain." Like a crossface; you can't wind it up and throw it like a hit, but you can use your wrist bones and make it hurt. You can even bust a nose or rip an ear with it -- and it's legal, as long as you don't wind it up. (I trained with a guy with really boney wrists, and I broke my nose at least 11 times. I stopped counting.)

We all stepped onto the mat knowing that was the case, and how to stop it (finish your move faster and don't put your head in a position to get crossfaced). You might land a crossface a little harder if you were frustrated or the other guy cranked one too hard, but the line was understood. As soon as that line was crossed, the ref settled everything down, and that aggression was channelled back into technique, it didn't burst out into a brawl. Do that, and your match is done.

I love watching scrums for that reason; there's so many little things going on that remind me of wrestling, and I'm sure there's plenty of legal pain.

 

[It is what it is]

Use of the mobile phone has been the cause of increases in group violence.
It's used by party goers to spread the word and get uninvited people to places they're not welcome, and by troublemakers to rally like minded mates to rush to a location to incite or respond to violence.
Talk to police and they'll tell you the first thing a lot of 'kids' they pull over in cars do is to get on their phones to call for back up or instructions from their gang leader. They're well organised and often have legal support on speed dial.

 

[Scoey]

I will add this though. When I was a teenager, a fair few of my mates were in to soccer and I was torn between wanting to play sport with my mates and not really being that keen on soccer. I decided to give it a go and played colts (U19s). Apart from being completely useless, the sheer violence of this 'non-contact' sport astounded me. The 'fights' that broke out on the field were as frequent as they were tame. All posturing and chest beating from a bunch of blokes who hated another bunch of blokes but who knew if they acted out on their hatred they would miss playing time. I lost count of the number of times, sitting in the dressing sheds after the game, we would be stormed by the opposition team who came in swinging or vice versa in one season, it was ridiculous. During one very violent dressing room brawl, a player pulled a knife from his kit bag. It wasn't used but the fight paused and there was a very tense stand off for some time before both teams backed away. It was at that point I decided that this was not the 'game' for me. I've never encountered anything remotely like this in Rugby.

 

[It is what it is]

Other things have changed over time.
During games if/when there was violence, the good experienced referees used to give the victim the chance to square his transgressor up during the game, then remind both players things were even and no more bs would be tolerated. As mentioned here earlier TV camera's, social media, and player's propensity to take what happened on the field off the field, have quashed this option.

 

[It is what it is]

I will add this though. When I was a teenager, a fair few of my mates were in to soccer and I was torn between wanting to play sport with my mates and not really being that keen on soccer. I decided to give it a go and played colts (U19s). Apart from being completely useless, the sheer violence of this 'non-contact' sport astounded me. The 'fights' that broke out on the field were as frequent as they were tame. All posturing and chest beating from a bunch of blokes who hated another bunch of blokes but who knew if they acted out on their hatred they would miss playing time. I lost count of the number of times, sitting in the dressing sheds after the game, we would be stormed by the opposition team who came in swinging or vice versa in one season, it was ridiculous. During one very violent dressing room brawl, a player pulled a knife from his kit bag. It wasn't used but the fight paused and there was a very tense stand off for some time before both teams backed away. It was at that point I decided that this was not the 'game' for me. I've never encountered anything remotely like this in Rugby.

The baddest roughest soccer comp of them all was the Church League.

 

[mxyzptlk]

I will add this though. When I was a teenager, a fair few of my mates were in to soccer and I was torn between wanting to play sport with my mates and not really being that keen on soccer. I decided to give it a go and played colts (U19s). Apart from being completely useless, the sheer violence of this 'non-contact' sport astounded me. The 'fights' that broke out on the field were as frequent as they were tame. All posturing and chest beating from a bunch of blokes who hated another bunch of blokes but who knew if they acted out on their hatred they would miss playing time. I lost count of the number of times, sitting in the dressing sheds after the game, we would be stormed by the opposition team who came in swinging or vice versa in one season, it was ridiculous. During one very violent dressing room brawl, a player pulled a knife from his kit bag. It wasn't used but the fight paused and there was a very tense stand off for some time before both teams backed away. It was at that point I decided that this was not the 'game' for me. I've never encountered anything remotely like this in Rugby.

Fuck's sake...

The worst I've seen in soccer was when my friend was walking through the line shaking hands after a game, and the guy he had trouble with yanked him forward when he took his hand and jacked him in the jaw. But no knives and no locker room gang wars.

Is aussie rules like that?

 

[Scoey]

Fuck's sake.

The worst I've seen in soccer was when my friend was walking through the line shaking hands after a game, and the guy he had trouble with yanked him forward when he took his hand and jacked him in the jaw. But no knives and no locker room gang wars.

Is aussie rules like that?

No idea bout AFL. My experience with soccer was a very very small sample and I don't suppose it's all like that or even the majority is like that. It was what it was though for me. But it's what led me to Rugby so as far as silver linings go, there ain't none shinier as far as I'm concerned!

 

[BPC]

It is legal in Australia to photograph people in almost all public spaces regardless of their consent.

They have no rights to confiscate your camera/memory card etc.

Victorian Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479.

For those that give a shit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Runner]

It's not antiseptic -- urine doesn't kill germs, and there is bacteria in urine that can cause issues (bladder infections). It was probably just better than other stuff available on the battlefield, and water was precious.

I know it also softens leather, and miners would piss on their hands and rub them together to help get rid of callouses. It can be useful. But probably not as a refreshing drink.

Thank you for the correction. Could be another way to say anti american.