Things that get up my nose about rugby these days
- Thread starter Lee Grant
- Start date
- Status
EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7
Syd Malcolm (24)
No. But how about we swap O'Connor's name for AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) just to make a point.
• Commentators - "There's no way that player could get out of there" Wrong comment guys: everybody knows he can't get out of there. What you should have said was: "The tackler was penalised because the ref thought he could have fallen in a spot where he wouldn't slow the ball down, but chose to do otherwise."
Sure, sometimes a player can't help it and gets penalised anyway, but I'd rather have that than players taking advantage of soft referees. It's surprising how a few cards from a ref in a game, or a previous game, can change the behaviour of tacklers.
• Commentators - "Why would a prop want to collapse his own scrum?" Wrong question; it assumes that he had a choice. The correct question is: "Why couldn't the prop take the pressure applied by the other team?" - or something similar.
Sure, sometimes a player can't help it and gets penalised anyway, but I'd rather have that than players taking advantage of soft referees. It's surprising how a few cards from a ref in a game, or a previous game, can change the behaviour of tacklers.
• Commentators - "Why would a prop want to collapse his own scrum?" Wrong question; it assumes that he had a choice. The correct question is: "Why couldn't the prop take the pressure applied by the other team?" - or something similar.
Karl
Bill McLean (32)
Boofheads in the stands who stick their bums in your face and trip over their own feet to go pee pee or get more beer in the middle of a half or at any time other than before the kickoff, half time or after the game ends. x10 when they slosh their drinks on you on the way back to their seats. If it's because a child needs to go pee pee then I have some sympathy IF and ONLY IF the parent made sure they went before the game started.
Agree with that Karl. Especially in Sydney where a lot of the fans are not really rugby fans who don't care that there is an interesting set piece on - or are not really sports fans but people who want to be entertained.
My standard lines to them are:
"That's a nice shirt mate ............... but I'd rather be looking at the footie."
"I bet you're a problem at the cricket." [But they usually don't get that one.]
My standard lines to them are:
"That's a nice shirt mate ............... but I'd rather be looking at the footie."
"I bet you're a problem at the cricket." [But they usually don't get that one.]
Karl
Bill McLean (32)
Once, after this morbidly obese guy got up in the middle of the second half with the apparent intention of repeating his performance from the first half (and bludgeoning his way past a row of unfortunates to return with two beers, a pie and a hotdog) (which he consumed on his own) a bloke said to him, whilst trying to avoid a plumber's coin slot that could swallow a battleship, "If you come back with a hotdog in your hand mate I'll stick it up your arse." He just didn't come back.
Badger
Bill McLean (32)
Yeah...bad enough at the rugby with two 40 minute halves. Absolute pain in the arse when it goes on for a whole day or afternoon/evening as they slowly get more intoxicated. Not as bad during a Test match, but the ODIs can be a nightmare, especially as many of these clowns get up during an over.
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
Essay topic: "Worse still is when some winger is flashing down the sideline and everyone in front stands up so you can't see what's happening. So you stand up too and then some bloke behind you lets fly because he can't see but for some reason doesn't want to stand up. Etiquette says you should sit down but you don't want to miss Turner going over in the corner." Discuss the options in less than 500 words without any disparaging remarks about Turner.
Schadenfreude
John Solomon (38)
You need to spend some time in England.
- Although if you include Channel 9's coverage, then yes they are the worst... I just don't think any of them are Rugby commentators.
- Although if you include Channel 9's coverage, then yes they are the worst... I just don't think any of them are Rugby commentators.
Regarding standing up to cheer a big play, I think it adds to crowd atmosphere. If the crowd are standing, waving and cheering it is generally louder and more exciting than if everyone is sitting down, applauding with a polite golf clap. As long as they aren't waving ridiculously oversized flags in your face, get up and cheer with them.
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
If you jump up, they guy behind HAS to jump up to keep watching. Then the guy behind him, etc. Pretty soon the whole bay is on it's feet, and it spreads from there. I say jump early and often.
MajorlyRagerly
Trevor Allan (34)
Whats to berate? Getting up with the crowd to cheers when an exciting bit of action happens is all part of the experience.
Fair enough to have a whinge at those who must walk past for beers & pissing every 2 mins, but when somebody stands up to watch some exciting action - I think thats out of order. Isn't there a strong likelihood that person is standing up as the person in front of them is?
If you don't like this, sit in the front row.
Slash
Bill Watson (15)
so should the match officials!
HKTiger
Allen Oxlade (6)
The more games I see in 2011 the more the "torpedo" loosie coming into a ruck, from all angles, is really annoying. It's clearly against the laws yet refs are allowing it constantly. I'm guessing this is an interpretation that will only get cleaned up when someone is seriously hurt in a ruck from one of the incoming torpedos.
I have nothing against rolling mauls, but adjuducate them correctly. once they start, they can't splinter and then have three forwards with no defender. That's offside. The Saffers got picked for that in a Tri-nations test and the commentators were flabbergasted. The law's pretty straight forward a maul is two attackers, one defender (minimum) bound, on their feet with the ball off the ground. The number of mauls I've seen this year, allowed to go on, with no defender attached is staggering.
Good thread. Very much a GOM thread though. Justifies the missus' description of me I guess.
I have nothing against rolling mauls, but adjuducate them correctly. once they start, they can't splinter and then have three forwards with no defender. That's offside. The Saffers got picked for that in a Tri-nations test and the commentators were flabbergasted. The law's pretty straight forward a maul is two attackers, one defender (minimum) bound, on their feet with the ball off the ground. The number of mauls I've seen this year, allowed to go on, with no defender attached is staggering.
Good thread. Very much a GOM thread though. Justifies the missus' description of me I guess.
That is incorrect. The law is as follows:
17.4 OFFSIDE AT THE MAUL
(f) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave
the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may continue
and there are two offside lines. The offside line for the team in possession runs through the
hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the maul and for the team not in possession it is a
line that runs through the foremost foot of the foremost player of the team in possession at
the maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(g) When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave
the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, players of that team
may rejoin the maul providing that the first player binds on the foremost player of the team
in possession of the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick
They are playing within the laws of the game. It is up to the defending team to maintain contact with the maul, not for the attacking team to find defenders to attach to.
- Status