• Help Support The Rugby Forum :




Yes I agree but I would like to clarify.

League, union, etc where there is a lot of physicality is great as long as the physicality is within the rules. Blows to the head belong to fighting sports.


Originally posted by Wally+Jan 21 2005, 10:20 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wally @ Jan 21 2005, 10:20 PM)</div>
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:12 PM
@Jan 20 2005, 10:08 PM
Living in Canada I don't get to see many 'fights' in the games replayed here on TV.  Is it a realistic aspect or dimention of the game that should be there? In hockey it's there to protect the better players, is it the same in rugby?

Most of the fights in rugby that I have seen are nothing like a good hockey fight. I've only been watching rugby for about 3 years, but all the fights I've seen have had, at most, 2 punches thrown each. The Spencer-Larkham "fight" was nothing more than wrestling, and Mealamu-Cannon involved one proper punch by Mealamu that bloodied Cannon's nose. From what I've seen, rugby fights usually grow out of repeated mini things, then eventually happen, unlike hockey where after one action you can suddenly have 6 fights happening.
Are you proud? A good rugby fight is when the majority of both teams are involved, a bit of argey, a bit of bargey and a few good air swings. Those types of fights arn't uncommon. [/b]
Sorry, I don't quite get what you mean when you ask if I am "proud".

The Bertuzzi-Moore incident is an arguement for MORE fighting in hockey, not less. That was not a fight, that was a sucker-punch. What Bertuzzi did was totally wrong, but Moore and the NHL should not have let it get to that point. If the NHL had not instituted the instigator rule, then Brad May would have fought Moore right after the Naslund hit, and that would have been that. Instead, the entire thing was allowed to simmer, nothing happened to Moore(very questionable IMO), and then 2 weeks later, Moore refused to fight anyone save Matt Cooke. And that fight with Cooke was garbage, and Moore should have known that and not been at all surprised that all of the Canucks who aren't the smallest player on the ice wanted to fight him too. What gets me is that Moore seemed surprised by all of this. When the actual incident with Bertuzzi occured, Bertuzzi was obviously trying to fight him, but never can you hit someone from behind like that.

After the game, the media blew the entire thing way out of proportion and there was writers all over the world who know absolutely nothing about hockey spewing sensationalist bullshit like the above. Pierre Lacroix, the General Manager of the Avalanche came out and said that Bertuzzi broke Moore's neck, which was absolute garbage. At that point even the Doctors didn't know the extent of the injury, and some of Moore's injuries were caused by the other 3 guys who jumped on his back. Even though that "broken neck" turned out to be a false, misleading statement, once it is out there people here it and assume its truthfullness. This helped lead to the NHL bowing to public pressure from non-hockey places and giving Bertuzzi a rediculasly long suspension by league standards and past precendent. For Example: Matt Johnson was given 10 games a few years ago for a very similar incident that ended Jeff Beukaboom's career; and Beukaboom was twice the player that Moore is/was.

Just curious, all of the people here discussing hockey: Are we having a Canadian invasion?


Well I suppose if fighting is integrated into the hockey game then there is not much more to be said about that. I suppose that is just the way it is.

I would have thought that players should be allowed to check players (within the rules) and just leave it at that. A bit like tackling in rugby, if you get smashed then that is simply the way it is and you have to wait for your opportunity to smash tackle back later on. If Stephen Larkham started getting upset that loosies were pumelling him then I would think he is a bit cowardly if he called some prop to go and sort it out.

Never mind......if hockey players are happy with enforcers fighting for them then so be it.


There is a big difference between hockey and rugby when it comes to 'hitting'. In hockey there really is no reason the smash someone.. but if you happen to be the type of guy that likes to hit people, whether a clean hit or not... there is bound to be some retaliation, such as a slash, hook, spear, whatever, it's going to come to a head at some point and a fight usually plays as a safety valve of sorts. European hockey is way different in this aspect compared to North American style, it would be fun to see how Australia, New Zealand, SA, Ireland, etc. would play hockey at a high level... it seems some european hockey countries lack that aggression at times, ie; Sweden, Finland, Czh. Republic. Germany and Russia are pretty tough though.


Geoff - agree with you on ur post...

not sure about the canadian invasion tho... unless Ireland counts??? nah, just love hockey and hate to see it looked at in the wrong light

Excitiation... I'm unsure how the countries you mentioned would play(aggression or not), but I know (from chattin to others at games) here in Ireland, with the Belfast Giants, that the physical/fightng aspect of hockey is not a deterrent from the game and is actually something that adds to the sport and its attraction to fans... added to that, the fact Mel Angelstad plays for us means you can't help but enjoy seeing your team beat the other team in every aspect of the game, especially the rough and tumble! So I reckon if folk from round here did play at a high enough level there would be a few of the tougher "nuts"...

God I love hockey !


Last proper fight I saw during a professional rugby match was Saints vs Gloucester in 2003/04. That involved most of the players on the pitch, 4 or 5 of whom who later cited, and Duncan Macrae was involved which is always a clue for a good scrap.