jsdealy

[Harry R]

Justin,
your PM inbox is full.

This is the message I was going to send you -


Slightly randomly, the song Swing Low,Sweet Chariot is sung by fans of the England rugby team at international matches.

The explanation I've heard is that it was already part of the rugby repertoire because of a version with accompanying obscene gestures; and when the first black player on the England team scored a try, the fans sung it to celebrate. Since then, it's become the anthem of England rugby fans.

Whatever the real reason, it's associated with the England rugby team, and the Rugby World Cup is on at the moment (and for once England have a real chance of winning) - hence my title.

Harry


jsdealy wrote on 10-21-2003 12:06 AM:
I'm curious about the newest title.

Perhaps a subtle harbinger of some out-of-the-ordinary conversion experience? Or just something fresh to puzzle the God-botherer(s) with...

Justin

[jsdealy]

Ha!

How random.

Speaking of rugby, we Americans - in sparsely filled and obscurely partitioned club leagues - have our own group of bloodthirsty ballplayers. I have a friend who wants to join our local rugby club, "Battleship Rugby," (reputedly national champions in whatever league they play).

In describing a practice he sat in on, he mentioned the fact that there are literally no breaks in the action, and once he saw a player jog to an unnoccupied spot on the playing field, whip out his 3rd leg and relieve himself right there.

"These guys are nuts, man," he tells me.

Later in the action, apparantly after scoring a crucial try (or touchdown, whatever they're called), one of the crazier players ran over to the aforementioned spot and scooped up a drink from the rain (and piss) soaked grass.

But, maybe that's just a local thing...

Justin

[jsdealy]

I googled "Battleship Rugby" and came up with the team page (http://www.battleshiprugby.com/).

Two time national champs, baby.

[Harry R]

Originally posted by jsdealy
... there are literally no breaks in the action ...

On the subject of which - I once heard American football was just a very small-scale minority sport before someone spotted that it was really well suited to TV - lots of opportunities for ad-breaks.

To quote Giles in Buffy - "I just think it's rather odd that a nation which prides itself on its virility should feel compelled to strap on forty pounds of protective gear just in order to play rugby".

Harry

[jsdealy]

Good reasons for padding:

"Within a decade, concern over the increasing brutality of the game led to its ban by some colleges. Nearly one hundred eighty players had suffered serious injuries, and eighteen deaths had been reported from the brutal mass plays that had become common in practice. In nineteen hundred five, President Theodore Roosevelt called upon Harvard, Princeton, and Yale to help save the sport from demise..."

-- an excerpt from this (http://wiwi.essortment.com/americanfootbal_rwff.htm)

[Harry R]

Fair enough. They sure look stupid though.

Harry

[Ted]

Originally posted by Harry R
Fair enough. They sure look stupid though.

Harry

What, you're not a regular consumer of NFL Europe?

Ted

[mindsweeper]

"The explanation I've heard is that it was already part of the rugby repertoire because of a version with accompanying obscene gestures"

Yes, Harry, and I'm still reprimanding my rugby-playing brother for introducing same to my kids, along with a few others!

Ruth.

[Dunc]

Which brings us back to the chestnut -

Rugby was an Olympic sport in 1920 and 1924. The same nation was gold medalist on both occasions. Which nation?

No googling for the answer - you're on your honour. Regards / Dunc

[Ted]

If it's Australia I'm going to fly to Sydney and strangle you.

Ted
I've got family there anyway

[jsdealy]

The US team played (http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/s971160.htm) on the 20th, we watched the rerun today at my job.

We're real good at basketball.

[Dunc]

Not Australia, Ted. / Dunc

[Rik Roots]

Originally posted by Dunc McReil
Which brings us back to the chestnut -

Rugby was an Olympic sport in 1920 and 1924. The same nation was gold medalist on both occasions. Which nation?

No googling for the answer - you're on your honour. Regards / Dunc

I've got a horrible thought in the back of my head that it might have been

[SIZE=1]the usa[/size]

[Harry R]

Originally posted by Rik Roots


[SIZE=1]the usa[/size]

Still, Britain once won the ice hockey gold, so it's not all bad news.

Harry

[Dunc]

US WINS THIRD BATTLE OF MIDWAY!

Yanks 39-26 Nihon.

(Third battle, because the only other match the US rugby team has ever won at the World Cup is a narrow victory over Japan in 1987.)

It was great fun to watch - delightful football. I'll refrain from mentioning that Mike Hercus, the US's Man of the Match, was born, and learnt his rugby, in Australia. (He was an under-19 rep for Oz, too.)

[mattj]

Be it gradual evolution of the human species, or better pharmaceuticals, those guys are bigger, faster, & hitting harder than ever b4.

matt

Originally posted by Harry R
Fair enough. They sure look stupid though.

Harry

[Kaem]

Out of curiosity, just how many messages can you save in your PM inbox before it becomes full?

[mindsweeper]

Ahem!

To bring this thread back full-circle - England has a chance of carrying that sweet trophy home! Sorry, but IMHO, American football was only ever a poor copy! (Says she, ducking!) With all that padding it's the difference between a bare-knuckle fight and a boxing ring - I know which I find more exciting. (Whoah!)

England for the World Cup!

Ruth

[Roge]

Yes Ruth, England have a real chance this time. We (New Zealand - the All Blacks for those who don't know the teams) have to get past the Boks and then probably Aussie. I hope the Welsh have a stunner on Sunday.

As for American football, I have only ever watched one full game and although it is a bit of a show it seems to be a lot of over padded blokes running around taking out who-ever they aim at. Ten seconds of play, two minutes of TV ads, Time Outs, etc, ten seconds of play, two minutes of TV ads...

At least with Rugby you get 40 minutes of almost continuous play, hard hits (and only the ball carrier gets tackled, and no, or very little, padding), 15 minutes at half time to get the beer in etc, and back to another 40 minutes of play. The only bit that goes on and on is the pre and post game analysis. And the US Rugby team are improving all the time - shame they don't get more home support. And the Rugby World Cup is a true world competition.

Roge

[SIZE=4]GO THE ALL BLACKS![/SIZE]

[SIZE=1]AND GO WALES!![/SIZE] ;)

[jsdealy]

The commercials are certainly a detriment to the fun of watching a game. I'm more of a college football fan and I'd much prefer to be in the stadium than in front of the TV; but even amid the pageantry and flare of a live game it seems that all too often, just as the pace and intensity of the competition is gaining speed, the players have to take a break for commercial. That's why I like soccer; hardly anyone around here can appreciate the athleticism it takes to play at a high level nonstop for forty minutes on end.

BTW, what's so wrong with random hitting? I'm a big fan of watching guys get hammered, ball carriers or not. :p

[pc]

I have watched this thread long enough!

If the NFL had to put a rugby team together, that team would easily dominate world rugby. Do any of you people know Ray Lewis? Terrell Owens? Warren Sapp? It wouldn't even be close.

Bet the farm.

It would make great pay-per-view.

[mattj]

The plain fact is, if those boys in the NFL didn't pad up the way they do, they would be killing each other. Literally. As is, life threatening injuries occur occasionally, & it's not uncommon for a player to retire after 1 to many concussions. I don't follow the sport with the intensity I did when I was a gambling man, but I think Romanowski is about ready to give it up.
later
matt

Originally posted by mindsweeper
Ahem!

To bring this thread back full-circle - England has a chance of carrying that sweet trophy home! Sorry, but IMHO, American football was only ever a poor copy! (Says she, ducking!) With all that padding it's the difference between a bare-knuckle fight and a boxing ring - I know which I find more exciting. (Whoah!)

England for the World Cup!

Ruth

[mattj]

Soccer & football is the equivalent of comparing apples & oranges. Soccer is like a 500 lap oval, the NFL is like nitro-burning funny cars making 1/4 mile passes, & occasionally they have to swap enjines between passes.

You don't think there is random hitting in the NFL? The camera focuses on the ball carrier, true, but there is all sorts of action away from the play. Anyone on the team not possissing the ball is considered a potential tackler & therefore eligle to get hit. That includes the kicker once possesion has change. Ever see a player standing around the pile take a shot? Happens all the time.

later
matt

Originally posted by jsdealy
The commercials are certainly a detriment to the fun of watching a game. I'm more of a college football fan and I'd much prefer to be in the stadium than in front of the TV; but even amid the pageantry and flare of a live game it seems that all too often, just as the pace and intensity of the competition is gaining speed, the players have to take a break for commercial. That's why I like soccer; hardly anyone around here can appreciate the athleticism it takes to play at a high level nonstop for forty minutes on end.

BTW, what's so wrong with random hitting? I'm a big fan of watching guys get hammered, ball carriers or not. :p

[mattj]

Ditto. It wouldn't be close.
Put the world cup holding rugby team in full gear & let them go 60 minutes with the last ranked team in the NFL. It would be ugly. Have the ambulances waiting.

later
matt

Originally posted by pc
I have watched this thread long enough!

If the NFL had to put a rugby team together, that team would easily dominate world rugby. Do any of you people know Ray Lewis? Terrell Owens? Warren Sapp? It wouldn't even be close.

Bet the farm.

It would make great pay-per-view.

[mattj]

I think this begs a legitimate question: when was the last time you attended a bare knuckles fight? Do you have any idea what would happen if for instance Foreman in his prime was landing those sledge hammers without gloves, or Tyson? Or just about any professional or amateur boxer for that matter?

later
matt

Originally posted by mindsweeper
Ahem!

To bring this thread back full-circle - England has a chance of carrying that sweet trophy home! Sorry, but IMHO, American football was only ever a poor copy! (Says she, ducking!) With all that padding it's the difference between a bare-knuckle fight and a boxing ring - I know which I find more exciting. (Whoah!)

England for the World Cup!

Ruth

[Harry R]

Originally posted by mattj
The plain fact is, if those boys in the NFL didn't pad up the way they do, they would be killing each other. Literally. As is, life threatening injuries occur occasionally, & it's not uncommon for a player to retire after 1 to many concussions. I don't follow the sport with the intensity I did when I was a gambling man, but I think Romanowski is about ready to give it up.
later
matt

Yeah, they actually changed the rules of rugby a few years ago after a survey at a British hospital's spinal unit found that it accounted for 19% of all serious spinal injuries, 70% of those resulting in permanent paralysis. And yes, the Rugby World Cup before last did in fact have someone die from injuries sustained on the field. This despite rules designed to reduce the risk - no high tackles and so on.

Do you actually watch any rugby?

Harry

[Roge]

I don't think many Americans have any idea what rugby is about. It is such a soft game that one of our local heros, Buck Shelford, had his scrotum ripped open in a game against the French and still played on. Is that soft or what. No pads anywhere. And he could drop kick from over 50metres. We all have our heros in whatever sport we follow. I am sure there are some amazing stories out there among the Tiddly Winks champs

I don't doubt that NFL live would be an amazing game to go to just for the atmosphere but it is such a different game. Not many top NFL players would tranfer very well to rugby, nor rugby players to NFL (perhaps the Tongans and Samoans are an exception). Hell a lot of Rugby League players never make the leap to rugby too well, but Sailor (Aussie) is getting better. He will be bloody dangerous in a wee while if he keeps improving.

I look at NFL like a big corporation - huge staff and very specialised people (one to run, one to catch, one to kick etc), whereas rugby has a smaller staff all with special skills but more capable of multi-tasking.

I guess it depends what you grew up watching. We get NFL TV coverage over here. Why don't those of you who like NFL try and watch a game from the World Rugby Cup in the US etc. You may enjoy it.

Roge

[SIZE=4]GO BLACK![/SIZE]

[mattj]

I'm not trying to make a point about which is the "best" game.
I've come to believe professional sports are on a pedestal way higher than they oughta be.
I've got better things to do these days than obsessively follow any sport.
The point is, all this derision about padding in the NFL.
Don't you get it?
Those guys are making millions of $ to be the biggest, fastest, hardest hitting athletes in the world.
I don't think that what is basically a game merits that kind of $, but since that's what the going rate is, that's what the game has become. A game of devatating collisions, each one the equivalent of being inside an automobile wreck.

You can take this to the bank:
if they played 60 minutes of football in the NFL wearing rugby gear, there would be @ least 1 fatality per game.

later
matt

Originally posted by Roge
I don't think many Americans have any idea what rugby is about. It is such a soft game that one of our local heros, Buck Shelford, had his scrotum ripped open in a game against the French and still played on. Is that soft or what. No pads anywhere. And he could drop kick from over 50metres. We all have our heros in whatever sport we follow. I am sure there are some amazing stories out there among the Tiddly Winks champs

I don't doubt that NFL live would be an amazing game to go to just for the atmosphere but it is such a different game. Not many top NFL players would tranfer very well to rugby, nor rugby players to NFL (perhaps the Tongans and Samoans are an exception). Hell a lot of Rugby League players never make the leap to rugby too well, but Sailor (Aussie) is getting better. He will be bloody dangerous in a wee while if he keeps improving.

I look at NFL like a big corporation - huge staff and very specialised people (one to run, one to catch, one to kick etc), whereas rugby has a smaller staff all with special skills but more capable of multi-tasking.

I guess it depends what you grew up watching. We get NFL TV coverage over here. Why don't those of you who like NFL try and watch a game from the World Rugby Cup in the US etc. You may enjoy it.

Roge

[SIZE=4]GO BLACK![/SIZE]

[HowardM2]

"Out of curiosity, just how many messages can you save in your PM inbox before it becomes full?"

I think the magic number is 80, but don't quote me on that.

[mattj]

I never said Rugby players were pussies.
What I said is with the millions of $ being thrown around the NFL gets the best of the biggest, fastest, hardest hitting athletes anywhere in the world.
Has it ever occurred to anyone, if those guys are routinely getting their brains scrambled wearing all that 'ridiculous' gear, what would be happening w/out it?

later
matt

Originally posted by Harry R
Yeah, they actually changed the rules of rugby a few years ago after a survey at a British hospital's spinal unit found that it accounted for 19% of all serious spinal injuries, 70% of those resulting in permanent paralysis. And yes, the Rugby World Cup before last did in fact have someone die from injuries sustained on the field. This despite rules designed to reduce the risk - no high tackles and so on.

Do you actually watch any rugby?

Harry

[Donner]

Originally posted by HowardM2
"Out of curiosity, just how many messages can you save in your PM inbox before it becomes full?"

I think the magic number is 80, but don't quote me on that.

I think it depends on the total number of characters being saved (i.e., the length of the messages), not how many. I've had as many as 104 messages in my PM inbox at one time.

Donner

[HowardM2]

You quoted me; now I'm going to go pout.