Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was looking for a thread already in existence but this is the nearest I found without spending the night trawling for it.

As a fan of sport and rugby in particular I've just watched how the Scots fans reacted to the Aussie Giteau taking a possible match winning kick. The last kick of the match.He was roundly booed. This isn't supposed to happen at rugby matches apart from the odd idiot. Were the Scots that desperate for a win? Fact is my understanding is that most kickers prefer if there is noise. The silence observed at some grounds can put them off. So question is are the Scots just bad sports or simply thick.He missed the kick but seems he was having an offday anyway.I would be ashamed as a rugby fan to boo an opponent taking a kick as much as T.Henry of France appears to be for what he did last week.What do you think?

The etiquette you write about has existed for years in this part of the world regardless of how much beer has been guzzled. But you suggest that it's demise is ok because of thuggery on the pitch. That's been around for years too.Your arguement that as one exists on the field it's ok for the other to exist off it doesn't wash with me.

Moto-cross bikes on a golf course


You could have ball guns to speed it up even more, Oh but what a sport that could be.....



Fotby with a square ball , I like that very much. Is it pawn then rook for the on-side rule ?




Rules are very important for sandwich shapes, see corner flag rule ( it MUST stay put in the hole )


Does this answer your question ...Hmm ?




W**F



* Knocks on the aquarium with a wooden spoon ....swigs mercury from hip flask*

Matthew you are welsh, so therefore your negative view of England fans is congenital.


Soccer brings out the worst the tribal instincts in people, to the point where people get killed, sometimes in large numbers.


Intelligent people spend hours talking absolute cock about a game played by grossly over-paid idiots whose off field exploits are fodder for the tabloids. That the fans actually believe that the players and managers of the teams actually give a toss about those teams, when at a drop of hat and an increase in their bloated pay packets they will all happily trot down the road to the local rivals; is a tribute to their delusions.


Rugby doesnt have any of this. Nobody takes its that seriously. It is only sport after all.

Matthew - we all recognise that rugby players cheat on occaision.


There are two differences

1) the rugby fans of all teams get on well together - its entertainment, to watch and discuss.

2) when rugby players cheat or use exceesive violence, there is immediate action by the national and world governing bodies and players are cited and banned. Unlike football where they say, the referee did not see it, therefore everythings honky dory, cheat as much as you like.

Hence your reference to Dean Richards simply shows that rugby deals with these issues better than football.


On the Haka. I'm not sure I agree that the All Blacks should be allowed free space to intimidate their opponents. They have milked that bit of psycological superiority for long enough.

Hang on now, where exactly have I mentioned Football in this discussion? It seems to me it's other people who are using Football in attempting to excuse problems in Rugby.


But seeing as you have mentioned Football Mick, I disagree with your argument. If a player commits a violent act in Football not seen by the Ref he will be punished after the event by the governing bodies, just like Rugby. As for cheating, I assume you mean the handball in Paris by Henry, well, what game play cheating has Rugby ever punished? The number of times I've watched on TV the scrum half rolling the ball into the scrum not straight is endless but I don't ever remember he being banned or having the match replied, do you?


The Haka is a tradition of Rugby, opposition teams can try and line up and respond, e.g. Wales and England in recent times, but as far as the crowd behaviour not sure how you can condone fans booing the Haka but come down hard on a penalty kicker being booed.

You're right Matt - you did not mention football - must be just that you a re football mad that made me think you were getting at footie being better than rugby


But having said that the thread is Rugby v Football after all so whether you mentioned it or not, its all relevant. I guess.

Well this is a rather pleasant and good natured fight isn?t it?


Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> On the Haka. I'm not sure I agree that the All

> Blacks should be allowed free space to intimidate

> their opponents. They have milked that bit of

> psycological superiority for long enough.


If you?re going to get intimidated by a bunch of Kiwis doing their choreographed little dance and sticking their tongues out I suggest you?re chosen the wrong sport. The girls are starting soccer practice on the other field in five minutes.

Well it intimidated the Welsh enough 2 years ago to for them to order the AB's to perform the Haka behind closed doors in the changing rooms!


If you look at it 40 years ago it was a bit of a dance - its changed over time and designed to be intimidating now. Its an advantage, no doubt.


Not happy about this Saturday though - was hoping to see the Irish beat the Safa's again on tv, but have to go to visit friends of the missus.

I'll record it. But Brendan I don't want to see you crying as I drive home up Lordship Lane, as that will give away the result. Keep your chin up whatever happens.

Come on Mick, that was a decision taken by the All Blacks to perform in the dressing room. Wales wanted them to perform Haka before the national anthems like the previous year when it was the 100th anniversary of the first Test when also they'd done the Haka before the anthems. Anyway, although it was a long time ago at least Wales can say they have beaten the All Blacks so in our case the Haka does NOT intimidate our players.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Time will tell if H&B are loved or loathed, the footfall they get and generate will determine if they stay or go. That's the nature of businesses, they come and go dependant on usage. Examples are M&S, Poundland Local, Co-op, Superdrug, Mons, the chain restaurant/takeaways, the chain Estate Agents, Toolstation, Screwfix to name a few.  As much as people would like to see Lordship Lane remain a high street of independents, it is becoming clear that due to Landlords hiking rents, some are unable to survive. This leaves empty units which some of the chain brands considering it to be worth a "punt". I'd have thought that businesses operating in shops is a better alternative than a high street with multiple empty units, but what do I know, they are just thoughts on the subject.   Take a look at Croydon and Bromley where what were once thriving high streets are in decline.  I have to say that some of the prices charged by the independents are eye watering, and incomes i'd have thought have to be substantial to afford their prices. Personally I'd love a Lidl to open on what was the site of the Harvester, but I guess that would get shouted down, oh the thought of Lidl in Dulwich. Whatever next. 
    • IMO, Sealy, the best nights sleep you'll ever have.  
    • I don’t know what the shop was originally next to the big St Christopher’s but if Holland and Barrett are taking it over then surely it’s good to have a choice on Lordship Lane? The Camberwell H&B is always empty but the Brixton branch busy.  I remember when the Marks & Spencer food shop was Iceland? Now the M&S is a very busy store and at the time regenerated the high street!
    • Nor would I have done, but it came up when I googled John Lewis reviews. Do you not trust TrustPilot reviews? Even allowing for the fact that many people only post reviews when they have had poor service, 27% one star reviews is indicative of something wrong, I would say. That's 27% of 76,392 reviews. That's an awful lot of people who don't  think the service they got from John Lewis was even worth two stars, let alone more. Screenshot attached.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...