Stalins Organ Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 2nd rowers are usually fine - they have to catch in lineouts so are used to it - perhaps you are thinking of props?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Nah. Props can't run! I'll be drummed out of the second rowers club, but I love it when I see one get the ball and make a break. After about 5 strides you see their head come up and this kind of WTF? look on their face that they haven't been tackled. Then they usually panic. If they get another 10 metres that's when they usually decide that they're now a back and they'll try to do something creative....like dummy (to no-one), goose-step (the wrong way) or chip kick (off the side of the boot). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huhr Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 its the same debate with ice hockey and helmets. The players are much bigger now in ice hockey compared to 30 years ago. It's for this reason with the lighter equipment, bigger players and same ice surface that more concussions are taking place plus the outlawing it of all fighting which did protect against some of the dirty play. I say increase the north American ice surface to Olympic size and you would see less injuries. Football - its a great game b/c it's only on once a week and each game has much riding on it. I love baseball but the finality of each game is different than football. Don't know much about rugby but a lot of American colleges have club teams that play it in the USA 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 the New Zealand union has an annual budget of about $60 million I think - maybe less - this article puts the 5 year income from SANZAR broadcast rights at $120m US How does that compare with the budget of an average american football franchise?? All but one NFL team is privately owned, but looking at the numbers for the one that is public we see $9.8 million in profit for fiscal year 2010 on $257.9 million in revenue. According to the article, that is about average. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 All but one NFL team is privately owned, but looking at the numbers for the one that is public we see $9.8 million in profit for fiscal year 2010 on $257.9 million in revenue. According to the article, that is about average. Ye Gods. So it's probably not far off the truth to say that each team in the NFL has a revenue which exceeds the total revenue of the international boards of Rugby of the world... I like Gridiron, but it's the regimentation that makes me like it less than Rugger. While there are lots of pre-planned plays, the improvisation in a game of Union is more attractive to my tastes. While I see some validity in the 'concerto vs improv jazz' analogy, I think the music the Gridiron Orchestra is playing from is missing a note or two, and its rules of meter are too rigid. And soccer... the beautiful game... I can see that, when I see the best teams at their best. But that happens so rarely that even Premiership players mostly look like amateur hoofers for 99% of the time, and the 1% of sublime brilliance is assuredly not worth the money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Nah. Props can't run! I'll be drummed out of the second rowers club, but I love it when I see one get the ball and make a break. After about 5 strides you see their head come up and this kind of WTF? Perhaps that's a problem with Aussie rugby then - 'cos if you told that story to Brian Lochore, Colin Meads or Ali Williams you'd get laughed at....actually come to think of it John Eales was no slouch...and I'm pretty sure James Horwill is a pretty good ball carrier too. Are you sure you're thinking of the right game?? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 I think the hookers these days are required to do a lot more than 20 years ago... Yeah, the life of a prostitute is not an easy one. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-E Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Yeah, the life of a prostitute is not an easy one. Michael <--- Me .................................................. Ten Foot Pole ---> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Are you sure you're thinking of the right game?? :confused: Are you sure you can't express any sense of humour once in a while? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Are you sure you can't express any sense of humour once in a while? :confused: sure I can - and I'm happy to show you how some time too, since you obviously need a lesson 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 AFL tackles are generally fairly low speed, must occur from in front only and are mainly aimed at pinning the player to the ground. . I would say from reading that you have not played or watched much aussie rules? In Australian rules you can tackle from any direction, the tackle must be laid between the knees and shoulders. You can tackle from behind however you cannot push a player in the back (included in this rule is riding the tackled player into the ground). As for the speed I would say aussie rules is a bit slower than NFL but both Aussie rules and NFL are much faster than rugby. As to tackling between aussie rules and rugby I had a mate who played rugby all his life in NSW who came down south and played a couple of seasons of aussie rules in the team I played for. In his opinion aussie rules tackles were more dangerous and likely to cause injuries purely for the fact that they could come from any direction whereas in rugby the vast majority of the time they were front on and you could prepare yourself for the impact. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I would say from reading that you have not played or watched much aussie rules? . That's right. I'd rather have my eyes plucked out by hot needles than watch that crap! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Sticking with the bum sniffers then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 Aff, second row? Really? The most boring, overworked place on the field. It surely takes a special person to like playing that position. Props have heaps more fun - you get to rub noses with like-minded blokes, stomp on hookers feet when they go to strike at the ball, steal balls (and tries! hah, when did a second rower last experience that glory!) at the front of the lineout, be first at the breakdown and gently persuade the opp to let go of the ball with your booted feet (best if you've managed to catch a five-eight - they value their fingers and you get instant submission). As for BD6's assertion that the small fast guys play the wing - take a quick squizz at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXTa7UCGlk. The ball carrier in rugby has to be aware of what is happening behind him - it's the only place he can pass the ball to with any degree of security. I think this requires far more of the team bonding than the larger teams of gridiron can realistically expect to manage. The lexicon of US football tactics provides the quarterback with predictable options out front - provided his offense is good enough to evade the defense and gain position - to my mind it does seem to take the spontenaiety and creativity out of the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodkin Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I prefer Rugby League to all other forms of sport. Rugby League is the highly evolved version of Rugby Union and a superior game IMHO, it's probably closer to American Football than pure rugby and more strategic with set plays rather than the more freestyle play of union. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I prefer Rugby League to all other forms of sport. Rugby League is the highly evolved version of Rugby Union and a superior game IMHO, it's probably closer to American Football than pure rugby and more strategic with set plays rather than the more freestyle play of union. I went to see the Rugby League World Cup Final between Oz and Great Britain. Waste of 2 hours of my life. The most interesting bit was the streaker at half time. Repeat [5 x [Run, tackle, wriggle] 1 x kick] until someone comes off their defensive line. Yawn. Of all the oval ball sports, it's the one I enjoy the least. I'd rather watch Association Football. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Arguing over which kind of rugby is best is like arguing about which form of intestinal flu is the most desirable. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.