Re: RWC 2007 -- Class of '64 Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

Subject: Re: RWC 2007

Author:
Ray

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:15:42 10/17/07 Wed
Author Host/IP: b0531.static.pacific.net.au/210.23.148.49
In reply to: toro 's message, "Re: RWC 2007" on 13:47:31 10/17/07 Wed

>The reason why rugby is playing second cousin to
>football is because of rugby's complex rules which
>make it difficult to comprehend and bewildering for
>majority ordinary folks unlike football's simplicity
>which accounts for it being the world's no 1
>entertainment sport and an industry by itself. Ever
>counted the gate collection of each MU's match? 60,000
>X 40 , 50, or 200 pounds or more, Or the TV rights?
>Sponsors? So can we grudge millions of $$$$ paid to
>the stars without which all the above would come to
>nought.
>
>If field goals are reduced to worthy of 1 point then
>scoring in this game would be lopsided in favour of of
>teams with hunks and muscles who can bulldoze the ball
>over to the goal line. Rugby is a game of running
>(tries) and kicking (a high level of skill). Teams
>with less hunk would be in serious disadvantage. In
>fact both should be accorded equal status. Both should
>be given 5 points.
>
>Speaking about rugby brings back memories on how we
>played the game in high school. Basically we were left
>entirely on our own to form a team to play in the
>state's competition. There was no one to coach or even
>advise us on the game. After a heavy loss Lee Mun Yui
>(our HM) could only offer the comment "so you all got
>a drubbing again eh". George (Ngoh Hung Onn) was the
>teacher in charge. I doubt he knew the game. So during
>the games we were bewildered and confused when the
>referee kept blowing for scrimmages and penalties. We
>didn't even know that we could wheel the scrums or
>even to form loose scrums or offsides or how to put
>our teammates on side.
>
>Watching the world class games certainly is an eye
>opener.

DAMNIT! Toro would not take the bait this time......must be getting wiser or older - or both?
Nothing worse than a "wise Apek", huh?

Disagree on equal points with a try & field goal.
The only team that plays Rugby on an International level with 'less hunk' will be the Japs. Look at the other minnows - Samoans, Fijians, Tongans, even a couple of the East European nations. They are all big.......bigger......biggest.
If a team does not have 'hunk' - that's their bad luck. Rugby is about size, weight, and some brains to effect an advantage over the other team in the scrums, tackles and yes, bulldozing your way through the opposition defence.

The problem here is that Toro wants to import into the game of Rugby, the fairy & dainty like motions of "kicking" a bloody ball (aka soccer). If you must kick, keep it to a low scoring achievement - not reward the Johnny Misfits of this world with non-deserving victories. Yuk! Yuk!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: RWC 2007	Featherless Cockerel	12:54:31 10/20/07 Sat
Re: RWC 2007 -- Ray, 11:59:32 10/22/07 Mon