Clock Management

v good

they could do this with a directive to referees as to when they say time on / off

Do you remember that match when Wales were told by the ref there was time for a lineout, when given a pen, whereupon they kicked to touch and were then told time was up ?

In '7's they get 30 seconds for kicks which is ample

i was a goal kicker (about all i was fit for) and we worked on a 20 second drill which made 30 seem like a luxury.
line it up, take a step, take a breath, take a kick. i honestly think that is all the routine you need. 30 seconds max.

could be more of a problem in windy wet conditions ... perhaps allow refs to use their common sense .... ?

a common sense suggestion cc.
kicking in brutal conditions was always bizzarly enjoyable as the pressure was off. it was in front of the posts with no wind  that was brutal pressure

Yup, that was when your legs turn to jelly, a nice easy kick that everyone "knows" you will get. I drop-kicked a few over from wide out if the points weren't massively important (possibly because I had a terrible concentration span and would rather have been playing rugby than lining up a kick), and when the weather was bad you just run up and hoof it hard, hope for the best, and nobody is surprised if it drifts miles wide. Miss an easy one and nobody lets you forget it for weeks.


I suggested the other day that the time for 1 scrum should be exactly that, i.e. a re-set is still the same scrum, from the same knock-on, but with the dopier refs can take up to 4 minutes. If it goes down the clock should stop and only start when the ball comes out. Time coming off the clock for re-sets doesn't make any logical sense at all and fans are being shortchanged, which is pretty pathetic after 18 years of pro rugby.

Disappointing that Nigel Owens, otherwise excellent all game, allowed Sexton well over a minute to take his late kick. You get a minute from the time that the decision is made to go for the posts, so if the ref stands around with his arm up for a while and the captain has an argument with his kicker you can find that it's 30 seconds until a decision is made, then over a minute until the kick is taken if the ref isn't on the ball. Only needs 12 pens in the game and you could see a quarter of the match taken up by 1 bloke kicking a ball while everyone else watches. That aint entertainment in my book.

I agree that scrums are taking up too much time, and even the scrum set up seems to take an age.

RM the 60secs starts from when the kicking tee appears on the pitch, not at the decision to kick.

This is what I found on the IRB site:

21.4 Penalty and free kick options and requirements

(b) No delay. If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground. The player must complete the kick within one minute even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. If the one minute is exceeded, the kick is disallowed, a scrum is ordered at the place of the mark and the opponents throw in the ball. For any other type of kick, the kick must be taken without undue delay.


Which in essence is a bit contradictory - first of all he's indicating to the ref that he's taking a kick at goal, but then it only counts if a kicking tee comes onto the field, which is out of the hands of player or ref and seems completely unnecessary.

So does this mean that the player says he's taking a kick, the ref signals the kick at goal, but then the team spend 20 or more seconds getting the tee onto the field and he has a minute from then? We are getting up towards a potential 2 full minutes for each penalty if that is the case.

Yup that in essence is the way in works, Capt signals to ref, posts please sir, then the tee is brought onto the pitch. 60secs starts from there.

Now if you have a team acting the boll  ix then you stop the clock and warn them that you will reverse the pen for time wasting.

As regards the actual 60secs, its something that a good ref will manage, ie kicker takes 55-65 secs for the first kick you would have a word, after that you would penalise.

in a big game the ref would have to have balls the size of melons to penalise. i really thought owen was on the brink with sexton tho. he was getting twitchy

Think everybody agrees that scrums and penalties take  far too long . Sorting it out requires a bit of non traditional thinking possibly .

Personally I would reduce penalty and drop kicks  value to 2 , and conversions to 1 . For a start that would reduce the emphasis on kicking points as against scoring tries .  Might not be a bad place to start from before tightening up the rules and regulations regarding timings .

Brilliant idea, Kelly

The second you reduce the value of penalties, the defending team will simply give more away.

If you want to increase tries, make penalties worth more, not less.

Honestly...the man gets right on my wick.

have to agree with ozy on this one if you devalue pens you simply add to the value of giving them away in the first place.

Re the time it takes to take kicks at goal.

RM
The interpretation of that rule is as it clearly states that the intention to kick is indicated by the arrival of the kicking tee or a player making a mark. The problem arises with the inevitable swig from the water bottle also carried by the kicking tee carrier, which causes 10 seconds to become 25 seconds. Surely referees and referees bodies can indicate to teams prematch that such a rule exists and that it will be strictly enforced in similar fashion to the " reintroduction " of the scrum feed laws.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t-ZERw4K8s

If players have the wherewithal to do what Stringer did it would ask questions of the officials and force them to be more aware of the tiime elapsed. A law change may be introduced where a Player could do similar to a penalty kick once the time has lapsed. Perhaps the introduction of a shot clock similar to basketball would be helpful to both the kicker and the defenders

I refuse to descend to your level of comment , Ozy , for a so called educated person you display a lack of decency in relation to suggestions with which you disagree .

You are obviously against increasing the value of a try , that is the corollary of decreasing kicks value .  Suffice to say that doesn't get on my wick  , its merely a difference of opinion , just like you backing one team while I back the other .

Rugby football is supposed to be a running game , it evolved when Webb Ellis  allegedly picked up a football and ran with it .  Anything which encourages a team to score a try is to be applauded in my book .

You are obviously against increasing the value of a try

Correct.  Because it would just encourage teams to give away more penalties.

hth

Negatives are not always the answer Ozy .  Increasing the value of a try would encourage teams to score more tries . You may think your logic is flawless , but there are always 2 sides to every story .

The "giving away penalties" process presumably is predicated on that option being the lesser of 2 evils . The answer to that one is to encourage referees to be more pro active in awarding penalty tries . The punishment fitting the crime is a mantra I ascribe to . Does not work in life or in sport as often as it should , but if a side deliberately ( in the refs opinion ) commits a foul to obviate a try being scored should he not award a penalty try ?

I think the golf guys have got it right in so far as they disallow retroactive penalties if the only evidence can be gleaned by slow motion . I have watched at least one try being disallowed recently because a defender touched the ball  after it crossed the try line( he could not possibly have exerted any "downward pressure" on the ball as he was sliding flat on his back and just touched the ball , which was then grounded properly by an attacker . Naked eye would always award that try . Attackers should get benefit of doubt in my book , evens out in the long run , and its the better option , reward for going forward .

I suppose one thing we have to perhaps be careful of is a game finishing 2½ hours after it started - missed trains home, workers needing to be paid overtime and so on.  Probably not a huge issue in reality though.

The shot clock type thing seems a sensible idea.  Get a 60 countdown on the big screen once the kicking tee arrives.  Will focus the Sextons of this world a bit and will also give the crowd a bit of interest too if the kicker gets the jitters. 

One other problem with the game though is the amount of extra time a match now takes due to the TMO.  We probably need a shot clock on this too.  e.g if 60 secs has passed and no clear decision can be made from the box, then go to refs call.  Especially now that they are pulling things up on the screen for all sorts of foul play.  The Leighton Hodges farce at the weekend where he thought he had spotted something and nobody upstairs could work out what it was he was looking at showed things have gone just too far in this respect.

Good option , the vis . Concentrate the minds of the preying mantis kickers .

Mind you Sexton is only finishing what others started .  First  high profile posing kicker ( what goes through your mind when you are standing there motionless with your arms flexed like a ballet dancer ) though was Johnny Wilkinson much though I admire him as a person and as a player .  First I can remember anyhow introducing the "art form " which has almost reached paralysis now betimes .

TMO decisions now take forever , plenty of time for a station break / comfort break if needed . If it cant be resolved quickly , the benefit of the doubt option enters my mind as suggested by you .

Lets just watch old DVDs of Mike Gibson.  Why bother watching modern rugby if all you are going to do is whinge about it?

What some posters might not realise is that Kelly's every view and opinion on rugby is tainted with the fact that he was an out and out GAA man in a time and place when never the twain shall meet.  It's no surprise he is still putting the boot in decades late.  Get over it or stick to the GAA.

According to you its too dangerous for young players (false) the players are getting bigger every year (false) skill levels were higher in the old days (false) etc etc etc. 

Enough!  Just f**k off back to the GAA.

Kelly

I have to agree with OZY with regard to skill levels. Kids today are starting their rugby lives as young as 5.  I played to a reasonably high level and none of my teammates would have started before 8 years of age.  While coaching can have its  negative affects ( systems, tactics at too young an age etc.) the basic skill levels are so much higher now.
I've coached school teams and  their skill levels are staggering compared to our generation ( 40 something). There were great players in every era ibut in my opinion current skill levels are at an all time high.

OZY
Be nice
Chill amach!!!!!

I try Yummy, I try, but he just gets my goat for whatever reason!

you Irish lads could start an argument
in an empty room

Just as well you boys didn't beat the ABs.  You'd be arguing for years over it

We Irish all know why Ozy takes such an extreme view . Basically he dislikes intensely the GAA and anyone who either played it or supports it .

Reference rugby I played it before I played GAA  , I was a regular at Ravenhill every Saturday ( along with our Parish Priest of that time -- which nails some of shibboleths about Catholics / GAA / clergy / rugby etc) . I watched Kyle , Henderson , Pedlow , Hewitt , and others , who all played to a high skill level , then Gibson came along , doubt if OZY ever saw Gibson play in the flesh .  Any true Irishman and any true rugby follower who disses Gibson on or off DVD is unworthy of the name .The fact that he was from Belfast / Ulster and not Dublin 4 may also stick in Ozys craw .

I saw David Hewitt run within 0.4 secs of the then world record on a grass track when he was 18 . Plus he was an excellent rugby player / Lion .  Any current rugby player in the WORLD capable of 9.7 secs for the 100 metres ? You can throw cold water at stars from the past if you like OZY , but facts are facts . And those guys were amateurs completely and utterly . And they represent the standard for me , too bad if you did not see them .

Rugby was a different game then as compared to now . The players are bigger now , and the ones we see most of are professionals . The contacts are much more severe than they used to be  , mass and velocity being the criteria , basic physics . Whether or not it is a better spectator sport now than years ago is open to question . 

Rugby is a potentially dangerous contact sport unless played correctly and in the proper spirit . Players are bigger now even if OZY hasn't noticed .  Injuries increasingly determine the results of matches . Ferris and Bowe of our province have not played more than 50% of the last 2 seasons due to injury , neither of them wilting violets in a physical sense  , both easily Lions standard and in their physical prime. No other local sport has as bad a record as that for injuries , and they are only 2 out of a lot more you could mention . Ignore the facts if you like , but I am a realist , more players are getting injured largely because of increases in physical contacts between bigger and heavier athletes . Dont think I ever remember a case of concussion in all the matches I have seen up to about year 2000 , each week now how many cases do we see ?

I realise that those who fancy themselves as pundits for a sport they love and cherish will disagree with some of what I say ( and OZY EVERYTHING automatically ). Just possible though that I am correct in my observations .

Anyone who disputes my views is free to do so , we live in a democracy allegedly . But only please if you can advance a cogent argument regarding the facts quoted by me .

i thought you were blacked balled forever from GAA games if you played rugby or soccer or was it the other way around?

you do have a point about the nature of the game at the moment. it's becoming a collision battle at the breakdown so coupled with the increased physicality injuries are on the rise.
i don't know about the game being "dangerous" per se. it has an element of danger but most contact sports have.
i broke my wrist playing basketball & that is supposed to be non contact (not the way we played it tho).

Here is a fact; Kelly you are a long winded boring ****, unable to express himself succintly, stuck in the past, with all of your post inevitably defaulting back to either of your icons, Mike Gibson or Rory McIllroy.

Who gives a toss what time David Hewitt ran the 100m in?  Whats the relevance?  And who has dissed Gibson on here?  Answer, no one.  We all know he was a great.

As regards hating the GAA, I don't give a damn about it.  I don't haunt GAA threas the way you haunt rugby threads.  It would be oh so easy to do so, to point out the lack of a tackle law, that the game is one long scragging contest, to harp on about Christy Ring etc etc I just have no interest in doing so.

9.7 for 100 metres?  Surely you mean 100 yards or that grass track was on a ski slope.

We had a thread here recently that showed statistically injuries are no more prominent than they were 10 years ago, as far as I can recall.

As regards size of rugby players increasing..compared to the 70's yes, of course...back then it was bank managers and doctors, now we have full time professional athletes.  But in the past 5 years or so, they have bulked down.  For reasons previously explained.

number of injuries isn't really the issue. there is no doubt that even at an amateur level we are seeing more collision based injuries. mind you we see far fewer injuries from out & out assaults on the pitch than in the past.

The vis , in words of one syllable , David Hewitt ran the 100 yards in 10 secs  , I was there , waiting for the next heat which I was running in . Grass . The world record then was 9.6  , difference 0.4 secs .

Current world record for 100 metres is 9.3 I think . Add 0.4 seconds , makes 9.7 .  My question was " can any current rugby player run the 100 metres in 9.7 "( which would guarantee them an Olympic medal even in todays "breakfast eating Jamaican rice and peas" world .

That element of the post was merely to emphasise the athletic ability of the player , never mind his rugby skill , which was excellent as he showed for Ireland and the Lions .

Care to explain the relevance of David Hewitt's sprint time in the above conversation?

Did anyone claim that no one could sprint in the old days?

Re skill levels OZY , by general concensus the most important position on the rugby field is out half . So let us compare the  skills of the current Irish and Lions out half and Mike Gibson .

Or maybe not .  Wouldn't be a race , despite my often expressed opinion on here that in horse racing terms Sexton is 7lbs a better player than ROG . ROG and Sexton represent the Irish out half best over the last 15 years  , could't lace Mikes boots comparatively speaking . Sexton is 3 inches taller than Mike , and 2 stone heavier  , given a pick though no-one I know or respect would have Sexton on his team in front of Gibson . That is the basis for comments about skill levels , which probably arose in a thread about forward passing . Players in Gibson's day NEVER passed the ball forward , passing the ball properly and remaining in position to receive a legitimate pass was ingrained in the players then , I assume that is allowed as a skill .

Reference skill levels and rugby ability when time permits I intend to "compare and contrast " the last Irish team who put up the best ever performance by an Irish  team against the best ever team ( statistically anyway ) in the world --The All -Blacks 2013 .  George Hooks "best ever Irish team " selection will have to suffice as a reference   . Skill includes ability to play the game , not just being big and running into others on the field .

this is all becoming a bit baffling.

Ozy , apart from your attempt to point score , the relevance of David Hewitt was his general athletic ability . You probably never saw him leaving opposition players in his wake for Ireland and the Lions . No one on the Irish team nowadays beats men with a mixture of pace and running ability that he had . Even BOD , our best in in the professional era pre assault . Thats the skill levels I hone in on .

The question was, on the whole, which era had the higher skill level?  That includes all players, not just an anomaly in the form of Gibson.

Inevitably skill levels are, in general, far higher now.  They have more time to train and devote to skills and training techniques have also improved.  Players have such little time to execute anything on the pitch these days that their skill levels have to be higher.

We have already dealt with the forward pass issue adequately on here...you don't seem to listen or absorb new information very well.  Defences these days are hugely organised, to breach them you have to play very flat and take chances with passes..ergo more forward passes.  Nobody lay flat in Gibsons day, there was no need to.

We know you are getting on in years but Please don't make us repeat points that have already been made to you.

the relevance of David Hewitt was his general athletic ability

Again, no one said that weren't some outstanding athletes in rugby years ago. Who would?

No one on the Irish team nowadays beats men with a mixture of pace and running ability that he had

That' because players are much fitter, defences are organised and therefore space is at a premium.  How MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO BE TOLD THIS

FFS!

Is he on the wind up or just f**king senile?

Stop shouting OZY .

The anomaly you bring up is Gibson . Strange that you would also have to include Jack Kyle , Ollie Campbell , and maybe one or 2 others as better outhalves than our last 2 ( who are / will be multiple Lions ) .  Thats too many anomalies for any validity in your statement .

I saw these guys play , often . You didn't I suspect .  If you did I would respect your call , but if you didn't see them play you cant compare them with current players .  I have earned the right to do that by virtue of age and spectating since the age of 6 approx .

As a point of reference OZY , what is your opinion on George Hook and his overall knowledge of rugby ?

I am not trying to compare individual players of yesteryear with individual players of today.  Why do you keep suggesting that I am?

I AM TALKING ABOUT SKILL LEVELS ON THE WHOLE.  THIS SHOULD BE ****G CLEAR TO YOU BY NOW


AGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Can the men in the white coats please take him away?  Failing that take me away.  They should have employed him to break people at Guantanemo Bay.

No opinion on George Hook , OZY ?  Strange , you have opinions on nearly everything that moves on the forum . Point scoring mainly .

George Hook ?

George Hook knows plenty about rugby. 

You will now proceed to say that he picked oldtimers X Y and Z ahead of current player A B and C...so what? That has no bearing on the discussion at hand, you have still failed to grasp this central point.

Bore off and annoy somebody else.  If I ever get to your stage of senility, can somebody please euthanase me!

Glad you acknowledge Hooks handle on rugby . Thats a plus . The relevance of his views and how they align  with yours to be explored . Assuming he is not senile of course .

His time will come, yours already has. When was your last check-up?

I'm not being funny by the way.

I know you were a bright and successful man.  And being involved in 'system design' would would expect a logical and rational mind.

That's doesn't come across anymore in the way you structure argument and debate.  It is very irritating to be on the other side.

"the way you structure argument and debate. It is very irritating to be on the other side."

oh the irony

I have been around long enough OZY not to be phased by people attempting to shout me down . Anyone who wants to can attempt that . And I only express opinions on things I have experience in and sometimes involvement with . A check up on posts would verify that , dont know how to do that myself , and I know its true anyway so why bother ? I have no expressed opinion on most things / forums on Betfair . Statistical analysis would verify that . My comments are confined to things I know about or have experienced , suggest that might not be a bad model for others .

Ref senility , thankfully it does not exhibit itself in our family .  My mother is 98 , lives alone with no help from the state physical or mental , and is 100% on the ball . As am I thankfully despite attempts to convince me otherwise . Betfair would be a dangerous place for anyone senile . I embrace Betfair every day , changed my life ( which hasn't been bad ) since retirement .

well, take it form me you know f**k all about rugby.

As regards no sign of senility in your gene pool that's reassuring.  But no harm having a check up anyway because something ain't right.

100yards in 10 secs would equate to just under 11 secs for 100m.  Very good time for those days, but you are completely over egging it to say he was doing 9.7 for 100m as in relative terms he is nowhere near going under 10 secs for 100m.

Never suggested that the vis . Times nowadays are way ahead of the 1950's . The relevance was that he was near to world record figures , which few if any  of todays  Irish rugby players are as far as I know . They train and consume  for bulk and collisions nowadays .

Never suggested that the vis

Do you forget posing the following question?

My question was " can any current rugby player run the 100 metres in 9.7

He can' remember what he said 5 minute ago.

F**K it I am just going to block him .

Insightful post at 13.20 OZY . Check out the statistical analysis re number of posts OZY , from flagfall on Betfair . I never thought anyone could be so knowledgeable and have so much input to forums . Including posting "senile"  descriptions on someone with views contrary to yours , real or imagined .

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing .

The contents of this post have been hidden for this blocked user: Kelly.
You can manage your blocked users list     here .

OK Kelly I see what you were meaning now.

Thread of the year vote from me. Is this what normally goes on over on the Irish forum?

To quote you , OZY , ffs read the posts .

The vis obviously cannot distinguish between 2 different concepts  , OZY .  Apparently neither can you . The 2 seperate views / questions were :

1. That David Hewitt was world class as a runner . No mention of him doing 9.7 for 100 metres . Somehow the vis and latterly youself have managed to mix up 2 seperate assertions .

2. A seperate question regarding any current rugby player being world class in sprinting terms . The reason for asking this is to include comparison like for like relative to eras . Maybe that is a concept too far  , or too simple .

I remember exactly what I posted , but you are trying to skew my posts to score points OZY .

Next you will be telling me that Don Bradman ( 1930 to 1950 approx in first class terms ) was nowhere near the current batsmen who are being exposed as sub standard every night on our screens ( whose size , diets , expert back up MUST render them better than those in the past the mantra goes ).  Bradman , Gibson  , Elliot , Hogan , Nelson , Snead , Nicklaus plus plus were just better than almost any of the current lot of sports people we see on our screens regulalry  .  If thats senility talking so be it , I just put it down to a lesson of history and a dispassionate analysis of ability  , and having seen them .

25 minutes and Cambridge have lost 2 players in the Varsity match . Fits in with comments expressed in this and other threads re physicality and injuries etc  . And nobody wants to leave the field in a varsity match -- too few opportunities for that .

now icbd is blocking people. it is irony piled upon irony.
couldn't make it up

Not even bettigonice got blocked.  He was a scoundrel but at least he was a proper rugby man. And Compos Mentis

"A proper rugby man" OZY ? Hardly pc these days .  Maybe there are degrees in rugby appreciation .  I prefer to view rugby as one of many enjoyable sports we see . But I see the drawbacks inherent increasingly in it as a sport for the participants . The Varsity match has lost 3 players after 34 minutes .  That is a high rate of attrition in my book . Particularly if one of them is a son or a grandson .

I am not picking the matches .  This one is relevant because its happening now . Acknowledge the realities and stop labelling people as senile .

I can't hear you.  No matter how many pills your are on, its not enough.

Conticuere omnes , OZY .

And personal comments/ unsubstantiated knowledge show up juvenile tendencies .

Much as I'm enjoying this from the sidelines..... Being within 0.4secs of the 100y world record isn't 'world class' sprinting, it's an age. The current world record is 9.59, so I'd posit that anything around 10.1/10.2 would be broadly equivalent of your man. Interestingly Carlin Isles is an athlete turned rugby player for USA and is burning up the 7s circuit beating players for fun, his PB being around 10.1. No-one is suggesting he is any good though, whilst being able to run very fast is a 'skill', it doesn't necessarily follow that that makes for a 'skillful' player.
I'd agree with the view that, on the whole, players are more skilful now, as they simply have far less time in which to make decisions. That doesn't necessarily make for a better game mind you.

Sorry Desmond , anyone who can run within 0.4 of the world record in any era is world class in my book , particularly  if its not their chosen first sport .

Related to other rugby players of his era , David was yards faster , and electric .  I saw him . And so did a lot of others , as he played for the Lions .

Apart from his ability to run fast , he was intelligent  and had a brilliant rugby brain . Rugby is an amalgam of various skills ( not as many as some other sports I could mention  , but thats another debate ) . But pace , strength in the run , bravery and ability to out-think your opponent are skills most backs would like to have . They are some of the criteria I apply anyway .

The fact that you know about some USA player who is fast enough to run 0.5 secs close to the world record is useful info . Also the fact that by your count he aint much good at rugby  , or particularly skilful .  Thankfully David Hewitt ticked all the boxes , he is part of the jigsaw in relation to skill factors past and present . But only if you saw him , anyone who didn't has to trust my judgement ( or look his record up ) .

There were a lot of players in the past who were not particulalry skilful , most of the forwards were picked because they were a certain shape , irrespective of whether they could get about the field . Thats one of the reasons I chose GAA before rugby  , big slow boats had no place on a GAA field  , in fact were often a danger to shipping through lack of skill and clumsiness . Have to stop there , otherwise the "anti rugby" adjectives will start to appear . In relation to skills , no comment I ever made  as far as I can remember was in relation to forwards , my comments were always exclusively targeted at backs where generally you can see what is happening .

Cambridge NO 9 dropped a simple kick off catch there towards the end of the match , simple catch  , nobody near him . If any of us had dropped such a catch on the GAA field , we would have been straight off . And that was 50 years ago plus , arguments re relative skill levels not crossing sport boundaries yet .

Google  : David Hewitt-British & Irish Lions . Just looked it up myself , first time . Guess everything I have posted about him checks out if you read that . Even OZY might look it up and comment . But probably not , no points to be scored by doing that .

Well, we will have to disagree on what constitutes 'world class' sprinting then Kelly, as half a second over 100m is assuredly a lifetime. Furthermore, I'm sure that if Mssrs Hewitt or Isles felt that they were capable of making a living from sprinting (admittedly harder in Hewitts largely amateur days), then they wouldn't be risking life and limb on a rugby pitch, Isles tried it and couldn't presumably because those times are not world class. I know if my lad had the potential to go under 10s for 100m, I wouldn't let him anywhere near a pitch and I'm a rugby man to the core - fortunately he's a hooker and is more likely to drain a pint in under 10s than run 100m!

i'm pleased to see this thread has not gone
off topic at all

Since when did they allow internet in nursing homes anyway?

Did you google that OZY  re David Hewitt ?  Interested to hear your comments if you can tear yourself away from trying to score points and showing off how infantile comments can replace logic .

What is GAA? Is it the Irish version of UFC?

Desmond , the tenor of you last post suggests you regard rugby as fairly dangerous .  Despite my view on it which does not sit well with the afficionados  , I still am a rugby fan with an increasing caveat re injuries and the advisability of encouraging younsters to step onto the field with guys substantially bigger and stronger . The nature of the game obviously puts players into contact as a big feature of the game . And whats the point in producing "touch rugby " youngsters if they cant advance to top level unless they are big . 

My view re encouraging youngsters to play the game is becoming more "fashionable" .  That is of no interest to me , but a lot of youngsters are not physically cut out for playing the game at a decent level .  Thats a big minus compared to yesteryear when wee small kids could play scrum half , and will of the wisps out half . If I was running rugby I would be scratching my head wondering how to redress the current trend towards physicality .

In the course of googling David Hewitt who comes from rugby royalty given that his family connection supplied many Irish players apart from himself , I came across this quote ( recent ) from him " to play rugby nowadays I would require a lobotomy " . How sad a comment on the modern game and the so called "development " of the sport . Many others also admit they dont know where the game is going  , largely because of physicality .  Guess I am not a voice crying alone in the wilderness .

GAA is the Gaelic Athletic Association , monstrous Brian . Virtually exclusive to Ireland playing wise , certainly at decent levels of ability .

Gaelic football and hurling are played on decent size pitches , 160 yards by 100 yards maximum  , and 15 a side is comfortably accomodated on that size of pitch , even with  17 stoners  aboard( not many of that size , no advantage given the constant movement nature of the games ) . Ireland played at Croke Park while the Aviva was being changed from Lansdowne Road , those  familar only with rugby were astonished when they saw how much space there was green when the rugby pitch was marked out on the playing area . There is not enough space on a current rugby pitch for 15 huge men a side . No one is addressing that though . Heads in the sand .