• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Controversial rugby opinions

Only about 15% of Wales were alive when they last beat them.
 
Cheating is the oldest (and most useful) tradition in rugby.
Hell, the game was invented by some posh kid cheating at football!

If you're not cheating, you're not trying.

Unless it's Saracens and the salary cap in which case it's reprehensible, outrageous, disgusting and deserving of banishment to Siberia.
 
Cheating is the oldest (and most useful) tradition in rugby.
Hell, the game was invented by some posh kid cheating at football!

If you're not cheating, you're not trying.
Unless your Quins with low effort, barely trying cheating.
 
People are far too nostalgic for the good ole days of rugby. They just remember the standout good games from back in the day. Not the dire 9-3 games etc. Which there was plenty of.
 
People are far too nostalgic for the good ole days of rugby. They just remember the standout good games from back in the day. Not the dire 9-3 games etc. Which there was plenty of.
i still think people had more fun with those "dire" games....you just didnt talk/moan/gloat about them...you went to the pub after or had a quick chat "around the water cooler"....would take that over what we have now where someone brings up a screen grab FROM a GAME THEY WON to explain why it should have been an even bigger win
 
i still think people had more fun with those "dire" games....you just didnt talk/moan/gloat about them...you went to the pub after or had a quick chat "around the water cooler"....would take that over what we have now where someone brings up a screen grab FROM a GAME THEY WON to explain why it should have been an even bigger win
Peak rugby was Rassie disecting Berry's referreeing performance post game. The antithesis of everything sport and rugby are supposed to be about.

Screw that bloke, in particular.
 
Unless it's Saracens and the salary cap in which case it's reprehensible, outrageous, disgusting and deserving of banishment to Siberia.
Yes, bloodgate too - and various drug cheats etc
There's cheating "within the spirit of the game" and cheating "outwith the spirit"

"dark arts" at the scrum, a good rucking, entering at the side, or "straying" offside are all cheating within the spirit of the game, and if the ref is letting it go, push it further.
Cheating off the field does seem to be seen differently - doping, financial or chemical is definitely "not on"; bloodgate, and the years of Wasps going uncontested at scrums so predictably that people were literally placing bets on what minute it would happen - all "not on".

Appealing to the ref is an awkward one - whether it's Haden diving out of a lineout, Lawrence clutching his face, Biggar seagulling etc - is seen as "not on" but it's also 1 player, on the pitch - I guess it's more an "either you do or you don't" rather than "pushing the edges of what the ref allows" - but I can't really put my finger on it.
People are far too nostalgic for the good ole days of rugby. They just remember the standout good games from back in the day. Not the dire 9-3 games etc. Which there was plenty of.
Also, plenty of enjoyable 9-3 games.
I'd also suggest that a dire 9-3 game is more enjoyable to watch than a dire 78-5 game - at least there's still jeopardy!
i still think people had more fun with those "dire" games....you just didnt talk/moan/gloat about them...you went to the pub after or had a quick chat "around the water cooler"....would take that over what we have now where someone brings up a screen grab FROM a GAME THEY WON to explain why it should have been an even bigger win
I blame access to replays (and antisocial media).
Back in the 80s and 90s, if you weren't in the stadium, you'd have the odd match on TV, in low-def, zoomed much wider out, and not be able to see most of it; combined with a greater acceptance of authority (ref's word is final), a greater acceptance of fallibility (TJ rather than AR, no TMO), and IMO a greater vision from the pundits that we're all in this together - you'd rarely hear Bill McLaren disagreeing with a ref, never hear him chuntering on about it half an hour later. What replays there were, were to show us good play, not to stir controversy etc.
After the match, you had reports from a few newspapers, and... that's it. There was be no way to digest things again after the match, and certainly no-one willing to listen to the rugby bore going on and on, and pulling out gifs on their phone, drawing offside lines, head heights, or discussion on whether the pass drifted forwards over teh ground more or less than the passer did after releasing the ball. And, of course, there was no-where else to meet fellow rugby bores who WERE willing to entertain such dissections.
 
Last edited:
the years of Wasps going uncontested at scrums so predictably that people were literally placing bets on what minute it would happen - all "not on"

Must be contagious….Seriously, I once played against their amateurs and got the same. This would have been about 20 years ago and they rocked up with a team of Islanders most of whom made Binny Vunipola look small and then protested that none of these midgets could possibly play in the front row.
 
every sport thinks the good old days were better because they only see the highlights of back then. Watch an old game and it's just a series of penalties and scrums. There are some highlights in between but it's not a beautiful game people pretend it is.
 
every sport thinks the good old days were better because they only see the highlights of back then. Watch an old game and it's just a series of penalties and scrums. There are some highlights in between but it's not a beautiful game people pretend it is.
If wasn't. It was shocking chaos for the most part but the scrum was way way better
 
so I'll say this about the good old days (that I watched on YouTube). Scrums formed immediately and the pk was taken immediately. Removing the kick for touch and having more scrum resets would probably help. Teams have too much to gain by milking for a penalty.
 
I blame access to replays (and antisocial media).
Back in the 80s and 90s, if you weren't in the stadium, you'd have the odd match on TV, in low-def, zoomed much wider out, and not be able to see most of it; combined with a greater acceptance of authority (ref's word is final), a greater acceptance of fallibility (TJ rather than AR, no TMO), and IMO a greater vision from the pundits that we're all in this together - you'd rarely hear Bill McLaren disagreeing with a ref, never hear him chuntering on about it half an hour later. What replays there were, were to show us good play, not to stir controversy etc.
After the match, you had reports from a few newspapers, and... that's it. There was be no way to digest things again after the match, and certainly no-one willing to listen to the rugby bore going on and on, and pulling out gifs on their phone, drawing offside lines, head heights, or discussion on whether the pass drifted forwards over teh ground more or less than the passer did after releasing the ball. And, of course, there was no-where else to meet fellow rugby bores who WERE willing to entertain such dissections.

It's good that the detail's there for those that want it. But in the moment watching a match, I want a TV commentator to add to the emotional experience not reduce it to cold analysis, indulge in "bantz" or tell me something that I have seen perfectly well with my own eyes.

In short, Bill McLaren.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Top