The difference between English rugby players and footballers
Discussion
of course there is - but not integral to every single game and accepted as the norm.
I am suprised any fan can condone and celebrated when someone scores a penalty after a blatent dive.
The amount of 'falling over' is just ridiculous.
As for the fake injuries.........come on.
When someone goes down on a Rugby pitch - you know they are hurt. When someone goes down on a football pitch -you know they aren't
The whole football thing, it's just a bit soft.
I am suprised any fan can condone and celebrated when someone scores a penalty after a blatent dive.
The amount of 'falling over' is just ridiculous.
As for the fake injuries.........come on.
When someone goes down on a Rugby pitch - you know they are hurt. When someone goes down on a football pitch -you know they aren't
The whole football thing, it's just a bit soft.
- I grew up in the North East and was working class............it's not like i'm some toff from Eton that only ever played Rugby. I didn't know what rugby was until I was 18!!
RacerMDR said:
of course there is - but not integral to every single game and accepted as the norm.
I am suprised any fan can condone and celebrated when someone scores a penalty after a blatent dive.
The amount of 'falling over' is just ridiculous.
As for the fake injuries.........come on.
When someone goes down on a Rugby pitch - you know they are hurt. When someone goes down on a football pitch -you know they aren't
The whole football thing, it's just a bit soft.
Who condones the cheating? I am suprised any fan can condone and celebrated when someone scores a penalty after a blatent dive.
The amount of 'falling over' is just ridiculous.
As for the fake injuries.........come on.
When someone goes down on a Rugby pitch - you know they are hurt. When someone goes down on a football pitch -you know they aren't
The whole football thing, it's just a bit soft.
- I grew up in the North East and was working class............it's not like i'm some toff from Eton that only ever played Rugby. I didn't know what rugby was until I was 18!!
Godzuki said:
Who condones the cheating?
every single member of the team, coach, manager, football fan and reporter that doesn't march over to the ref and demand that the 'cheater' has his goal disallowed, and is sent off.Or put another way - anybody that cheers the success of the cheat. Which - is pretty much everyone on that particular side (player and fan)
It's just about having respect for honour and sport. I feel there isn't much if any when I watch a football game.
RacerMDR said:
every single member of the team, coach, manager, football fan and reporter that doesn't march over to the ref and demand that the 'cheater' doesn't have his goal disallowed, and is sent off.
Or put another way - anybody that cheers the success of the cheat. Which - is pretty much everyone on that particular side (player and fan)
It's just about having respect for honour and sport. I feel there isn't much if any when I watch a football game.
And that happens in rugby when there is cheating? They march over and tell them what for? From the coach, to the authorities, for cheating? Really? Or put another way - anybody that cheers the success of the cheat. Which - is pretty much everyone on that particular side (player and fan)
It's just about having respect for honour and sport. I feel there isn't much if any when I watch a football game.
Godzuki said:
And that happens in rugby when there is cheating? They march over and tell them what for? From the coach, to the authorities, for cheating? Really?
My point is - it would be ridiculous to suggest there isn't cheating in rugby - but it is the exception and not the rule.Football.......it is an integral part of the game.....it is accepted, justified and condoned. You can't for a minute deny that.
that and most of the players are soft as s
te - and I can't respect them.It's good though - I don't watch!
My local plays Formula 1 as its priority sport - even if some big football game is on - football is ignored for F1. Long may it continue!
Both sports need to sort it from the top down.
Professional players' livelihoods depend on results, so if they can get an edge by cheating they probably will until stopped by the referees.
It is so ingrained in football now that I'm not sure it could ever be stamped out. The attitude of 'that's always gone on', as if that excuses it, shows that there is no desire to change things.
I'd hate to see rugby go the same way, but we already have squint scrum put-ins being tolerated and you hardly ever see a scrum where all 4 props are binding according to the laws. It needs stomping on now - hard.
Professional players' livelihoods depend on results, so if they can get an edge by cheating they probably will until stopped by the referees.
It is so ingrained in football now that I'm not sure it could ever be stamped out. The attitude of 'that's always gone on', as if that excuses it, shows that there is no desire to change things.
I'd hate to see rugby go the same way, but we already have squint scrum put-ins being tolerated and you hardly ever see a scrum where all 4 props are binding according to the laws. It needs stomping on now - hard.
I think the big problem with football is the diving and cheating.
I get the impression from my basic understanding of Rugby Union and League is that there are very few fouls/penalties given in open play. The only 2 judgement calls a ref/linesman would make would be a high tackle and forward pass. Everything else is of a technical infringement, not retreating 10yds, not staying on feet, not releasing the ball etc.
In football which is also a contact sport (although the governing bodies are trying their best to stop this
) nearly every foul given is based on a judgement call. did he win the ball, he won the ball but wasn't in control of himself so a dangerous tackle. You never know what the ref is going to do. Even in the same game the ref could give totally different decisions (or non-decisions) for the same type of tackle/contact. I think this then leads to players knowing that they can gain an advantage be it a free kick or a penalty.
I listened to an interview with a European journalist a while back on the radio and he was saying that in Spain and Portugal deceiving the ref is seen as a part of the game and you are taught that at a young age.
I get the impression from my basic understanding of Rugby Union and League is that there are very few fouls/penalties given in open play. The only 2 judgement calls a ref/linesman would make would be a high tackle and forward pass. Everything else is of a technical infringement, not retreating 10yds, not staying on feet, not releasing the ball etc.
In football which is also a contact sport (although the governing bodies are trying their best to stop this
) nearly every foul given is based on a judgement call. did he win the ball, he won the ball but wasn't in control of himself so a dangerous tackle. You never know what the ref is going to do. Even in the same game the ref could give totally different decisions (or non-decisions) for the same type of tackle/contact. I think this then leads to players knowing that they can gain an advantage be it a free kick or a penalty.I listened to an interview with a European journalist a while back on the radio and he was saying that in Spain and Portugal deceiving the ref is seen as a part of the game and you are taught that at a young age.
There is a rather big elephant in the room as far as rugby is concerned.
Up until Union became professional - around 1987 or so although officially in 1995 - the game was spoilt by frequent fights. The scrum was just a punch-fest in some matches. I remember watching one match, in the days of Eddie very Wearing, where the ref let everything go as long as the ball came out of the scrum, ruck or maul within a few minutes. Referees were regularly intimidated and dangerous tackles were the norm. Mind you, this was in the days of Leeds football being in the first division at football so punching was quite mild in comparison.
The front row of scrums were very dangerous places to be for anyone who wanted control of anything below their shoulders in later life.
Rugby has, from both a player's and spectatator's point of view improved no end and avoiding a tackle is not a sure fire way of a back becomong disabled for a few weeks. I'm all for a laught but I had a living to earn and turning up for work at a printers with fingers all srapped in bandages did not go down to well with my employers. I once ran the line and was deliberately taken ut because I gave a foot in touch. The ref was too intimidated to do anything about it.
Rugby was once described as controlled thuggery but I saw little control in those days. It is much improved nowadays and not only because the backs occasionally get the ball.
Up until Union became professional - around 1987 or so although officially in 1995 - the game was spoilt by frequent fights. The scrum was just a punch-fest in some matches. I remember watching one match, in the days of Eddie very Wearing, where the ref let everything go as long as the ball came out of the scrum, ruck or maul within a few minutes. Referees were regularly intimidated and dangerous tackles were the norm. Mind you, this was in the days of Leeds football being in the first division at football so punching was quite mild in comparison.
The front row of scrums were very dangerous places to be for anyone who wanted control of anything below their shoulders in later life.
Rugby has, from both a player's and spectatator's point of view improved no end and avoiding a tackle is not a sure fire way of a back becomong disabled for a few weeks. I'm all for a laught but I had a living to earn and turning up for work at a printers with fingers all srapped in bandages did not go down to well with my employers. I once ran the line and was deliberately taken ut because I gave a foot in touch. The ref was too intimidated to do anything about it.
Rugby was once described as controlled thuggery but I saw little control in those days. It is much improved nowadays and not only because the backs occasionally get the ball.
RacerMDR said:
interesting thread - I think the nail has been hit by several posters
1. Education - footballers in the majority are less educated than Rugby players
2. Class - football is a working mans sport - Rugby is an upper class sport
but that's only Union and only Union in the UK 1. Education - footballers in the majority are less educated than Rugby players
2. Class - football is a working mans sport - Rugby is an upper class sport
league in particular is a working man's sport ( and prior to Union becoming 'professional' never the twain shall meet as League becomes pro as the same sort of 'level'of game as soccer ) and the inhabitants of the 'league belt' in the UK are no more or less educated than the average working man ... but despite this league still remains a far less dramtic game than soccer...
Derek Smith said:
Up until Union became professional - around 1987 or so although officially in 1995 - the game was spoilt by frequent fights.
I'm not entirely sure the fans will see it that way, though I do understand what you mean. I do think the physicality and violence on the pitch factor in the absence of violence among the fans."99!"
some good and interesting comments
i can't quote properly due to fkwittery, but i wil take issue with rugby being a game of the educated and higher classes.
Can i comment that until very very recently rugby players had to think about things other than rugby to earn a crust - they all needed income more or less straight after the game(current england players are MILES away from the life of riley until death after retirement from the game)
that may well make them "more rounded" than the pro footballers 99% of whom have had smoke blown up their arse since age 10.
i can't quote properly due to f
kwittery, but i wil take issue with rugby being a game of the educated and higher classes.Can i comment that until very very recently rugby players had to think about things other than rugby to earn a crust - they all needed income more or less straight after the game(current england players are MILES away from the life of riley until death after retirement from the game)
that may well make them "more rounded" than the pro footballers 99% of whom have had smoke blown up their arse since age 10.
Godzuki said:
It's not, apart from the fact that falling over for a penalty makes you look like a weak shaven legged fanny. Mind you I retract that statement as Mike Phillips is Welsh and has very probably shaven his legs and applied oodles of fake tan. 
Having read the thread, the usual "our sport is better than your sport is tedious", however to address a few points. Giving ten metre penalties wont work in football as unlike rugby, where losing 10 metres can bring the posts with in the range of a penalty kick. Which in the age of metronomic penalty kickers can be suicide, as most teams possess a decent kicker. In football the loss of 10 metres doesn't have the same effect, in some cases you could argue it makes it harder for the player to get the ball up and down over the wall. Perhaps a 10 minute sin bin would be more effective?
Referees need more protection in football, Looking at Fergusons 5 match ban, it will be for nothing if the next weekend a referee gets verbally abused with out the player involved receiving punishment.
Whilst playing rugby I never called the ref anything but "Sir" ( to his face
) in rugby league or union, and it never even crossed my mind to argue as there were 7 other forwards who would inflict "education" should I have given away 10 metres. I however cheated my arse off for 80 mins, and as a back row forward it would have been remiss of me not to. However I guess the difference, and this is just down to my perception of the other game, is that watching some one fall over with minimum of contact just goes against the grain. This video link has probably been trotted out on each one of these threads but I can't be bothered to check,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BekwRb9778E
but i can't imagine this kind of exchange happening at Old Trafford
Edited by Bosshogg76 on Wednesday 23 March 22:28
Well, I think you actually get a verbal communication between the rugby ref, and players. Football referees seem to make their decision, and then pretend to be a headmaster and simply shoo the players away. I think, like rugby and American football, the decision was explained for all and sundry, that frustration will go. You won;t get any more "ref, what the fk was that for", and some prima donna ref just walking backwards saying nothing at all. I think it is frustration for the players, more than anything else.
k was that for", and some prima donna ref just walking backwards saying nothing at all. I think it is frustration for the players, more than anything else. Godzuki said:
Well, I think you actually get a verbal communication between the rugby ref, and players. Football referees seem to make their decision, and then pretend to be a headmaster and simply shoo the players away. I think, like rugby and American football, the decision was explained for all and sundry, that frustration will go. You won;t get any more "ref, what the fk was that for", and some prima donna ref just walking backwards saying nothing at all. I think it is frustration for the players, more than anything else.
I know that this is deviating massively from the OP, but yes frustration of football players seems to borne out of not understanding why the player is being penalised. Clarity in this area would help, but this is a 2 way street, if the instruction was that the ref was to only speak to the captain, who then disseminated the decision the the rest of the team, it would remove the scrum of players descending on the ref. k was that for", and some prima donna ref just walking backwards saying nothing at all. I think it is frustration for the players, more than anything else. This however would be a massive sea change in football, and one that would take more then a one season "respect" campaign
There does seem to be one ref bald guy, i think he's a copy, who when i occasionally watch football, seems to be much calmer than most refs, and does seem to explain the reasons for his actions. Or maybe i just saw him on a good day
Edited by Bosshogg76 on Wednesday 23 March 22:53
Godzuki said:
Well, I think you actually get a verbal communication between the rugby ref, and players. Football referees seem to make their decision, and then pretend to be a headmaster and simply shoo the players away. I think, like rugby and American football, the decision was explained for all and sundry, that frustration will go. You won;t get any more "ref, what the fk was that for", and some prima donna ref just walking backwards saying nothing at all. I think it is frustration for the players, more than anything else.
My lad was playing for British colleges against a Welsh team - in the Gower penninsular on a soaking wet Thursday in February, kick-off at 8pm with a meal afterwards and then a drive all the way back to Brighton - the ref was miked up and as I was videoing the match I had it plugged into my camera and had an earpiece.k was that for", and some prima donna ref just walking backwards saying nothing at all. I think it is frustration for the players, more than anything else. One of the Welsh players, under 19s, questioned a decision but put it quite politely. The ref turned to him and said, in a delighful Welsh accent: I will tell you why in a second but I would point out that that my job is to keep everyone in order and not to instruct you in the laws. The penalty is for offside, your number 8, and there were others. Now, I'm going to walk 10 yards [sic] towards your line. Have you any further questions?
The reply: No, sir.
I think a 10 metre penalty could work in football if any resulting free kick could be taken anywhere across that line and any distance up to that line.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff