NPR

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:00 pm It doesn't matter if they're not all regular starters, it's a 23 man game now - witness the success of the SA "bomb squad" and having that size available makes a big difference. It's a pretty long list of players!

I'm not moaning about the French, I'm pointing out a contradiction to the idea mooted by my friend that everything's okay because apparently player sizes have diminished recently: the most successful teams right now have a surfeit of absolute mutants. Rugby as a pro sport values sheer size very highly indeed. Right now, SA and France have that size. England have had it in the past. NZ have had it in the past. One of the reasons why Scotland's not been able to win a 6N is because for all their talent, they've rarely been able to field a properly beefy side. Size gets you out of trouble and can cause teams problems even when skill is letting you down. Size gives you more space to play with, gives you front foot ball, a big set-piece advantage, and (ironically) means that the game is less physically demanding for the side with the size advantage, so fitness is more of a concern for the smaller team. Size makes rugby easier.

England would definitely pick gigantic players if we had them. We have big guys - the front row is hefty (though not Mauvaka/Atonio giants), Dombrandt is a unit, Tuilagi when fit is obviously a powerhouse, and Steward is very tall - but we don't really have the sheer size of an Atonio or a Mauvaka or a Danty or a Willemse or whoever right now. We're left hoping that a mediocre player like Joe Cokanasiga can show some form and fitness, because he's massive, or hoping that Ollie Lawrence (5'9", about 97kg) can be our Ma'a Nonu or Danty or De Allende (108kg, 110kg, 105kg respectively). Quins' Esterhuizen would be a godsend to England, because he's a 12 that's actually big and good, not pretend big like Lawrence - 6'4" and 113kg. It's been true for a while now that our coaches think we develop massive blokes all the time and want us to play like that, but we don't. Hence the idiocy of building a gameplan around a sicknote like Tuilagi, when there's no ready-made replacement. Hence hanging on to Billy Vunipola no matter how bad his form got, because the alternatives meant a different game plan. Christ, it's why Mike Tindall's career carried on so long. He was Actually Big, unlike Jamie Noon or whoever we tried to shoehorn into that position post 2004. It's why Matt Banahan got 16 caps. There are players who buck the trend just by having physicality and athleticism far beyond the raw stats of their physical form - the likes of Itoje or Dupont are good examples of this - but being a gigantic bastard gets you a long way in rugby.

Size really does cover up a multitude of sins in rugby, and the more giant players you have, the more likely it is you're gonna win. The more of them you have available to you, the higher the chance you'll get some that are also really good and talented rugby players who are also fit enough to survive at international level. French rugby is full of players like this, from what I've seen. Ditto Saffer rugby.

TheFrog wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:23 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 2:11 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:01 pm I had this discussion very recently from a slightly different angle with a former pro, who himself was a gigantic unit. He doesn't like the idea of weight limits because apparently the size of players has come down since the 2015 world cup. I pointed out that the most successful teams in the world right now are absolute units - France and South Africa - and that sheer size still dominates in most situations.

Rugby being a game for all sizes and shapes has always been a bit of an aspirational goal anyway, especially when you get anywhere near pro level. Not many 85kg tightheads around, or 120kg scrum halves, eh.

I'm not sure that's true for France. It's the perennial commentator's line about "giant French packs" whereas the reality is that rarely has a French pack been materially bigger than comparable opponents for 2 decades. If you look at the current, typical 1st team selection, the only real monsters are Atonio (whose selection presence is questionable) and Willemse. Danty/Vakatawa, Fickou and Penaud are big men in the backs but then Villiere is a midget and Aldritt very light for an 8.

1m91, 115kgs is not light in my books.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 7:44 am

TheFrog wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:23 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 2:11 pm

I'm not sure that's true for France. It's the perennial commentator's line about "giant French packs" whereas the reality is that rarely has a French pack been materially bigger than comparable opponents for 2 decades. If you look at the current, typical 1st team selection, the only real monsters are Atonio (whose selection presence is questionable) and Willemse. Danty/Vakatawa, Fickou and Penaud are big men in the backs but then Villiere is a midget and Aldritt very light for an 8.

1m91, 115kgs is not light in my books.

It's nowhere near trad 8s like Picamoles, Chabal etc

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:23 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 7:44 am

TheFrog wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:23 am

1m91, 115kgs is not light in my books.

It's nowhere near trad 8s like Picamoles, Chabal etc

According to stats, It's pretty much the same as Chabal - same height, and the listed weights for Chabal are 115kg or less. I think it's likely Chabal was a bit heavier but it's not like comparing Sam Simmonds to Billy Vunipola, Aldritt is in the same ballpark as Chabal.

Niegs wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 4:44 am

Jimmy Smallsteps wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:21 am

laurent wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 6:05 am When will they stop messing with the rules? Red should stay as it is.

It smacks of changing the rules to stay relevant.

When they go back to deciding accidental contact with the head is not worthy of a red?

The change to the red rule in Super Rugby Pacific is a sensible reaction to the extremely strict head contact protocols that have been introduced.

Previously reserved for the most egregious acts on the rugby field, a guy can now find himself red carded for accidentally making contact with an opponent's bonce, such as when driving over a ruck or joining a maul.

Has that happened?

The most debatable ones seem to be those defenders stood still having the carrier fall into his head, but the framework is designed to say "You MUST attempt to bend at the waist and be conscious of what could happen. If you arrive into a potential contact situation upright, that's on you because that's what we're trying to correct."

Uncle fester wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:39 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 12:04 pm


I seem to remember that a good while ago you couldn't actually get sent off in Aussie Rules, but if you did commit some atrocious acts you got banned for two games.
When I used to watch it on Channel 4 there was a player that played every third match.

Must be where this guy came from?

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:55 am If a player is getting that many cards then a citing commissioner should be taking care of that.

ASMO wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:55 pm I think the restricting of subs idea definitely has merit, Nigel Owens i believe suggested this last year. Make more players play the full 80 mins will result in lighter players, i am fully against being able to sub your entire front row after 60 mins. Perhaps consider injury subs only with the independent doctor assessing the injury to minimise sharp practice?

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:51 am

ASMO wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:55 pm I think the restricting of subs idea definitely has merit, Nigel Owens i believe suggested this last year. Make more players play the full 80 mins will result in lighter players, i am fully against being able to sub your entire front row after 60 mins. Perhaps consider injury subs only with the independent doctor assessing the injury to minimise sharp practice?

I genuinely think this would be the best solution. If the expectation is that a player who starts a game finishes it, then players will have to focus more on fitness and endurance than on size and strength. Allowing a complete front row replacement at 50-60 mins is basically saying ‘bulk them up as much as possible, they’ll never have to play a full game’.

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 10:51 am

ASMO wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:55 pm I think the restricting of subs idea definitely has merit, Nigel Owens i believe suggested this last year. Make more players play the full 80 mins will result in lighter players, i am fully against being able to sub your entire front row after 60 mins. Perhaps consider injury subs only with the independent doctor assessing the injury to minimise sharp practice?

I genuinely think this would be the best solution. If the expectation is that a player who starts a game finishes it, then players will have to focus more on fitness and endurance than on size and strength. Allowing a complete front row replacement at 50-60 mins is basically saying ‘bulk them up as much as possible, they’ll never have to play a full game’.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 7:41 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:00 pm It doesn't matter if they're not all regular starters, it's a 23 man game now - witness the success of the SA "bomb squad" and having that size available makes a big difference. It's a pretty long list of players!

I'm not moaning about the French, I'm pointing out a contradiction to the idea mooted by my friend that everything's okay because apparently player sizes have diminished recently: the most successful teams right now have a surfeit of absolute mutants. Rugby as a pro sport values sheer size very highly indeed. Right now, SA and France have that size. England have had it in the past. NZ have had it in the past. One of the reasons why Scotland's not been able to win a 6N is because for all their talent, they've rarely been able to field a properly beefy side. Size gets you out of trouble and can cause teams problems even when skill is letting you down. Size gives you more space to play with, gives you front foot ball, a big set-piece advantage, and (ironically) means that the game is less physically demanding for the side with the size advantage, so fitness is more of a concern for the smaller team. Size makes rugby easier.

England would definitely pick gigantic players if we had them. We have big guys - the front row is hefty (though not Mauvaka/Atonio giants), Dombrandt is a unit, Tuilagi when fit is obviously a powerhouse, and Steward is very tall - but we don't really have the sheer size of an Atonio or a Mauvaka or a Danty or a Willemse or whoever right now. We're left hoping that a mediocre player like Joe Cokanasiga can show some form and fitness, because he's massive, or hoping that Ollie Lawrence (5'9", about 97kg) can be our Ma'a Nonu or Danty or De Allende (108kg, 110kg, 105kg respectively). Quins' Esterhuizen would be a godsend to England, because he's a 12 that's actually big and good, not pretend big like Lawrence - 6'4" and 113kg. It's been true for a while now that our coaches think we develop massive blokes all the time and want us to play like that, but we don't. Hence the idiocy of building a gameplan around a sicknote like Tuilagi, when there's no ready-made replacement. Hence hanging on to Billy Vunipola no matter how bad his form got, because the alternatives meant a different game plan. Christ, it's why Mike Tindall's career carried on so long. He was Actually Big, unlike Jamie Noon or whoever we tried to shoehorn into that position post 2004. It's why Matt Banahan got 16 caps. There are players who buck the trend just by having physicality and athleticism far beyond the raw stats of their physical form - the likes of Itoje or Dupont are good examples of this - but being a gigantic bastard gets you a long way in rugby.

Size really does cover up a multitude of sins in rugby, and the more giant players you have, the more likely it is you're gonna win. The more of them you have available to you, the higher the chance you'll get some that are also really good and talented rugby players who are also fit enough to survive at international level. French rugby is full of players like this, from what I've seen. Ditto Saffer rugby.

We are probably arguing the same thing here for the sake of arguing. Of course, Eddie does have orcsbut he has dropped the Vunipolas, one of whom Eng's entire fwd game plan revolved around or they have become injured or past it.

France does have mutants in abundance at the moment and it's not just the size but the skill sets that come with it. When you watch Bourgarit last week or Chat earlier this season before injury, you see big guys (not Mauvaka large for props) who can motor and handle.......... and can't get near selection. The most athletic, fast, skilled freak of the lot is Macalou who is nowhere near the side. Not far behind in those stakes are Jordan Joseph and Demba Bamba. You also may have seen the hooker Montgaillard and wing Jefferson Joseph in the U20s. The one who is sailing under radar at the moment is SH Le Garrec at Racing who is not a million miles from Dupont but also has a 90%+ kicking game and bar injury will be a selection certainty by the time of the RWC.

2 things have changed in French rugby
1) Finally, the sorts of kids from rough, immigrant backgrounds are finding pathways into the game.
2) The very belated attempts to restrict foreign players

TheFrog wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:40 am Le Garrec is heading for Japan with Les Bleus i read somewhere. Hope they give Dupont a rest and that the kid shows his worth.

France depth at scrum-half is ridiculous, though Dupont is so much ahead of the lot, especially by his defensive work now, that his absence will be felt.

I haven't see Chat recently but I don't have memories of his hNdling skills. Rather he reminded me Swarsewsky for his ability to drop the ball in contact after a storming run and 20m gain.

TheFrog wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 2:14 pm https://www.rugbypass.com/news/why-nige ... law-trial/

There. Nigel Owens said it.

The same man who said Thierry Dussautoir was the best captain he came across during his refereeing years.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:54 pm

TheFrog wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 2:14 pm https://www.rugbypass.com/news/why-nige ... law-trial/

There. Nigel Owens said it.

The same man who said Thierry Dussautoir was the best captain he came across during his refereeing years.

Yeah. It's bollox. Either rugby gives a sh*t about safety and players adapt, or it doesn't. It's as binary as that.

GogLais wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:44 am So the aim is to have a quicker game with fewer and shorter interruptions with players that will be a bit lighter and faster. Tbh I can’t see that in itself making much difference to the safety issue. More entertaining, probably yes.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:47 am

GogLais wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:44 am So the aim is to have a quicker game with fewer and shorter interruptions with players that will be a bit lighter and faster. Tbh I can’t see that in itself making much difference to the safety issue. More entertaining, probably yes.

Lighter players will get injured less, everything becomes easier when you're lighter. Look at 7s, some of the hits look huge but the energy dissipated will be far less and also the disparity of energy exchanged is far less. However, there is something magical in seeing a 140kg prop make a break or throw a dummy...

GogLais wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:14 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:47 am

GogLais wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:44 am So the aim is to have a quicker game with fewer and shorter interruptions with players that will be a bit lighter and faster. Tbh I can’t see that in itself making much difference to the safety issue. More entertaining, probably yes.

Lighter players will get injured less, everything becomes easier when you're lighter. Look at 7s, some of the hits look huge but the energy dissipated will be far less and also the disparity of energy exchanged is far less. However, there is something magical in seeing a 140kg prop make a break or throw a dummy...

Speaking as a layman where brains and concussion are concerned - aren’t we going to get smaller but more collisions? Does that help much? And I suspect some teams would still go for size in the expectation of crushing the smaller one in the first 60 minutes. Possible unintended consequence - the size differential increases.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:21 am

GogLais wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:14 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:47 am



Lighter players will get injured less, everything becomes easier when you're lighter. Look at 7s, some of the hits look huge but the energy dissipated will be far less and also the disparity of energy exchanged is far less. However, there is something magical in seeing a 140kg prop make a break or throw a dummy...

Speaking as a layman where brains and concussion are concerned - aren’t we going to get smaller but more collisions? Does that help much? And I suspect some teams would still go for size in the expectation of crushing the smaller one in the first 60 minutes. Possible unintended consequence - the size differential increases.

Look at Exeter, a massive pack who like (or liked) to consolidate possession and play one out hit ups over and over and over again. There would either be fewer tackles with lighter teams or no difference to when the team is huge imho.

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:28 am This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:28 am This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:32 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:28 am This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

It's a good point. I think you pretty much have to murder someone (and contest it) to get the full tariff. It just doesn't seem happen.

“We are disappointed that Dr Venter does not seem to understand the seriousness of this case,” Blackett said.

“Knowing how the crowd was reacting he should not have waved, bowed and blown kisses before halftime and at the end of the match. He showed no sensitivity or awareness of the ethos of rugby but instead continued knowingly to provoke the crowd.”

Lobby wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:41 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:28 am This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

I think a major factor is the obsession with making ‘dominant’ tackles. This is why players are still going into tackles upright, with all the dangers for head contact that entails. Until coaches change their focus on dominating tackles we will continue to see red cards being issued.

The answer isn’t to remove or reduce the consequences of a red card, or to try other changes that are just as likely to have other unintended consequences, but to continue to insist that dangerous tackles are unacceptable and will be punished by red cards. Eventually coaches and players will realise that it’s not worth tackling players head high.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:47 am

Lobby wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:41 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:28 am This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

I think a major factor is the obsession with making ‘dominant’ tackles. This is why players are still going into tackles upright, with all the dangers for head contact that entails. Until coaches change their focus on dominating tackles we will continue to see red cards being issued.

The answer isn’t to remove or reduce the consequences of a red card, or to try other changes that are just as likely to have other unintended consequences, but to continue to insist that dangerous tackles are unacceptable and will be punished by red cards. Eventually coaches and players will realise that it’s not worth tackling players head high.

Dominant tackles and preventing the offload being valued more than the safety of the opposition. Everyone in the game pays lip service to player safety being paramount, but, fundamentally, players aren't willing to go lower and coaches aren't willing to tell them to if it means offloads and tackles that result in ground being lost.

I don't know what can be done about that mindset.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:34 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:47 am

Lobby wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:41 am

I think a major factor is the obsession with making ‘dominant’ tackles. This is why players are still going into tackles upright, with all the dangers for head contact that entails. Until coaches change their focus on dominating tackles we will continue to see red cards being issued.

The answer isn’t to remove or reduce the consequences of a red card, or to try other changes that are just as likely to have other unintended consequences, but to continue to insist that dangerous tackles are unacceptable and will be punished by red cards. Eventually coaches and players will realise that it’s not worth tackling players head high.

Dominant tackles and preventing the offload being valued more than the safety of the opposition. Everyone in the game pays lip service to player safety being paramount, but, fundamentally, players aren't willing to go lower and coaches aren't willing to tell them to if it means offloads and tackles that result in ground being lost.

I don't know what can be done about that mindset.

The weird thing about all that is that if you're running hard and flat out then a low chop tackle hurts you far more than running into an upright defender. I know this from bitter experience!

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:46 am

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:32 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:28 am This whole argument is like football in the nineties and the tackle from behind. FIFA went after it strongly, made it a red card and players were smart enough to change their habits.

World Rugby is bottling it because rugby players are too fucking stupid.

Agree with the stuff about the disciplinary process. The Stade player still got time taken off his ban; 12 weeks given, 2 taken off for expressing regret etc, then a paltry 1 added for it being a repeat offence. So he still didn’t get the full tariff for the offence. It’s fucking nuts.

It's a good point. I think you pretty much have to murder someone (and contest it) to get the full tariff. It just doesn't seem happen.

Depends which disciplinary body you sit in front of. Brendan Venter got a 14-week (FOURTEEN WEEKS) ban for "making an inappropriate gesture" to spectators (and Leicester ones at that!) and then had the temerity to eat a biscuit that was laid out on the table in front of him!

“We are disappointed that Dr Venter does not seem to understand the seriousness of this case,” Blackett said.

“Knowing how the crowd was reacting he should not have waved, bowed and blown kisses before halftime and at the end of the match. He showed no sensitivity or awareness of the ethos of rugby but instead continued knowingly to provoke the crowd.”

I'd say Venter knows exactly what the ethos of rugby is which is why he bowed and blew them a kiss rather than giving them the bird and telling them to fuck off.

Monk wrote: ↑Sun Apr 17, 2022 9:31 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:46 am

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:32 am

It's a good point. I think you pretty much have to murder someone (and contest it) to get the full tariff. It just doesn't seem happen.

Depends which disciplinary body you sit in front of. Brendan Venter got a 14-week (FOURTEEN WEEKS) ban for "making an inappropriate gesture" to spectators (and Leicester ones at that!) and then had the temerity to eat a biscuit that was laid out on the table in front of him!

“We are disappointed that Dr Venter does not seem to understand the seriousness of this case,” Blackett said.

“Knowing how the crowd was reacting he should not have waved, bowed and blown kisses before halftime and at the end of the match. He showed no sensitivity or awareness of the ethos of rugby but instead continued knowingly to provoke the crowd.”

I'd say Venter knows exactly what the ethos of rugby is which is why he bowed and blew them a kiss rather than giving them the bird and telling them to fuck off.

as far as I remember that all kicked off as the coaches - i.e Venter - were seated with home spectators in front and behind them and Venter stood up to follow play which attracted the ire of some ducks seated behind him and he told them to bugger off by mocking them.

ia801310 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:51 pm

TB63 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 5:23 pm

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 12:57 pm Rugby is fucked as a sport, in ten years we will be wondering what the we were doing supporting a game where like hundreds of people are getting diagnosed early onset dementia.
And for what? 80 minutes of entertainment a week?
I could fly a helicopter in VR , or play guitar or collect watches.. or dance around the front room in my underpants, with a VR headset on whilst playing guitar and browsing the Internet...a million ways to entertain on3s self.. in 2022..and no one gets dementia.
No one gets hurt.

I am feeling incredibly queasy about the game of rugby tbh. We can call them players..but they are real human beings, putting themselves at terrific risk at the end of the day, just for our entertainment...there is something wrong about the sport...and I don't even like half the f'ckers.

Most rugby players don't play to entertain you. They play because they love the game. Go down to your local club and watch the 4th team play, as much passion as the pros..

This 100%, Rugby is going nowhere