BS: Yankee rugby??!!

Subject: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 05:30 PM

I was having a bite and flicked on the TV. Rugby on one the big three netwoworks! and the announcers were explaining the game! I watched. It was sloppy but it WAS rugby between two Yankee teams on NATIONAL TV!

Then, no shit, on comes Army v Navy rugby. Same announcers and they were explaining the game and making it as exciting as they could.

Now, what I saw was really sloppy rugby but it was actually exciting. Exciting for the unknowing fans and exciting for me because the sloppy play made my blood pressure rise. And, seems they have made some rule changes which are very odd but hey, that's the yanks eh? Gotta try to make it "better". Whatever.

So, I am excited. Maybe this means more rugby coverage... hopefully. As long as it's not just Yankee teams. Don't get me wrong... it'rugby... but it ain't RUGBY... fer now... >;-) I can hope, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 06:40 PM

At least protective clothing is at a minimum.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 07:01 PM

As far as crapping on Yankee football and their use of protective clothing... I have been down this road and explained it many times in the here Café... Yankee football is BY FAR the best kind of football and they wear "protective clothing" because of the FAR MORE VIOLENT nature of their sport and because of the way the game is played by FAR LARGER and FASTER players.

If ya wanna shit on Yankee football, do it elsewhere. This thread is about rugby.

Gee whiz... I can't wait til the NFL fires up the new season so I can watch some good football again. Can't see any decent rugby here... yet...but wait til the Yanks get "into it" eh? They got leather balls too.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Jun 12 - 07:10 PM

I was wandering around the campus of Colorado College, way back in '68, when a chap from the RAF asked me where the US Air Force Academy was playing Colorado College in rugby.

Idaho State University here has a rugby team.

So...what else is new?

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: CET
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 07:56 AM

Alas, I miss Mediazone, where you could get live streaming and archived rugby matches online. We haven't had cable for years, so I don't have even the few matches you can get on the specialty sports channels.

I'm not with you about North American vs Rugby football. Everything that differentiates rugby from gridiron makes me prefer rugby. I like the laws against forward passing and blocking. I don't think gridiron has anything to compare with a really skilled team going forward completing phase after phase. Rugby seems to flow better, with fewer interruptions. You're right about the protective gear, though. Gridiron football is more violent and it needs that stuff.

By the way, we have tickets for the U.S. / Canada match in Kingston, Ontario next week. You might find that on Sportsnet.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 08:14 AM

At least protective clothing is at a minimum.

Naked rugby? Now that's surely a rule change too far.

As for the other American version isn't it more accurate to say that the hyped up tactics are the consequence of the protective clothing rather than the other way round? The body armour makes it possible to do things that would otherwise be seen as far too dangerous, by making it possible to see them as relatively safe.

Mind it doesn't always work out that way with "protective clothing" - there's the case of boxing, where the use of boxing gloves makes it look less bloody than bareknuckle fighting, but actually makes it more dangerous, because heavier blows can be inflicted. I suspect that the same thing may in fact be true of other sports. Less blood, maybe, but more real damage.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 10:46 AM

I feel exactly that way about fencing. Dump the masks and jackets and sharpen the edges and points! Forget that wussy "electronic scoring" and fence like it was MEANT to be done!

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 12:14 PM

Good points, McGrath.

The reason I like Yankee football is the strategy and fan involvement. I'll add that rugby can be pretty damn "slow" at times too. Move the ball two feet, move the ball two feet... fact is, every sport played well can be enjoyed by spectators... to each his own.

I am just excited that rugby may really catch on in the US as has football.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 12:17 PM

Let's not be disparaging about Rugby in the USA.
The 'Rugby World Cup' was first held in 1987, and won by New Zealand.
Prior to that the only true world competition in Rugby was when it was part of the Olympics. The last Olympics to feature Rugby were in 1924, when USA won Gold.
This means that USA were Rugby world champions for 63 years.

It is unlikely that any other country will ever match that record.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 12:47 PM

But Aussie Rules football is far more entertaining to watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 05:30 PM

Nigel! Hahahahahahaa! EXCELLENT!

LOVE Aussie Rules. We get one (Grand Final) and maybe several games a year on TV. Even then... not live.

Cricket... lucky to get a few games from ten years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: Fossil
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 07:41 PM

Could the increasing interest in Rugby football in the USA and a lot of other unlikely places have anything to do with the fact that Sevens Rugby will soon be an Olympic sport?

And its big brother game, when played well, is stunning to watch...

Good luck, US Rugby, from the land where it's the State Religion (New Zealand).

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: gnu
Date: 03 Jun 12 - 09:00 PM

Good point worth consideration, Fossil.

You ferriners just can't imagine the joy I take in seeing the emergence of football in NA with the new league (MLS... Major League Soccer) and the TV coverage which has grown a great deal in the past few years. And, it's on the verge of happening with rugby... hence my thread and my excitement.

PS... I still like Yankee football better and I have my reasons. But, that don't make no never mind. Not in the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 02:59 AM

"This means that USA were Rugby world champions for 63 years." Well no it doesn't really mean that if you look deeper. It means they won the Olympic competition but none of the world's major teams entered the said competititons. The first time the US won the Olympics there were only two teams in the tournament. Them and France! I imagine France were the favourites but they also weren't a top tier side at that time. They had been playing in the 5 Nations since 1910 but had never managed to win it - and didn't do so until 1955. The second time the US won it there were only three sides in the tournament that is them, France and Romania. The last mentioned were minnows and got hammered in every game. Had it involved teams from the British Isles involving their top players plus of course the big three from the southern hemisphere (ie Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) then it could have been described as a world championship.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 05:27 AM

"This means that USA were Rugby world champions for 63 years." Well no it doesn't really mean that if you look deeper. It means they won the Olympic competition but none of the world's major teams entered the said competititons. The first time the US won the Olympics there were only two teams in the tournament. Them and France! I imagine France were the favourites but they also weren't a top tier side at that time. They had been playing in the 5 Nations since 1910 but had never managed to win it - and didn't do so until 1955. The second time the US won it there were only three sides in the tournament that is them, France and Romania. The last mentioned were minnows and got hammered in every game. Had it involved teams from the British Isles involving their top players plus of course the big three from the southern hemisphere (ie Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) then it could have been described as a world championship.

Usually all countries are aware of the olympics, and are entitled to enter teams.

The fact that some (most) countries chose not to enter should not belittle the result.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 02:30 PM

Allan AND Nigel... some of that's kinda what I said, in a much nicer and jovial way.

BTW, Allan... imagine what might happen if the Yanks get into rugby in a big way.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 03:07 PM

Welcome as US interest in rugby is, I can't help feeling that if they became significant, they'd ruin it with demands for breaks in play while the TV shows the adverts. To my taste, American football is too broken up to be very interesting: every play is a setpiece, and the plays separated by breaks so prolonged that the players have had time to recover before the next (assuming the lineup hasn't changed completely). Rugby has much greater posibility of a sudden, unplanned change from attack to defence, and also requires the strategic conservation of resources- too keen early on, and the team might be scraping the barrel by the last quarter. But de gustibus non est disputandum.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 04:30 PM

This has been done to death, Paul. Fact is... oh, why bother? Except to ask, regarding "... a sudden, unplanned change from attack to defence...", don't your rugby players know what they are doing if they are so "strategic" in their play?

I hope the USA gets into rugby and wins at the olympics just to piss off the detractors and their negative comments. Poor sportsmanship, I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 04:53 PM

Not by me it ain't gnu. The change from attack to defence happens because one player's skill (or sometimes luck) beats another's, or because one strategy finds the (temporarily) fatal flaw in another. Chaos theory. Sorry you see my comments as negative- I thought they were descriptive.

In deference to your sensitivities, I won't talk about alabalaboosha.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 05:51 PM

Oh... so it's not unplanned... it's a reaction to circumstances. Understood.

In Yankee football, the same occurs... every play, every minute, analysed by players, coaches and spectators. The difference, I think, is that the myriad of considerations in Yankee football under such circumstances makes Yankee football a sport wich involves the spectators in a far more personal manner.

Oops... said I wasn't going to try to explain it again.

Let's leave it at this. I like Yankee footbal, rugby, football, Aussie Rules, Cricket, tennis, squash, lesbian wrestling... and I don't care to shit on any of them. Except alabalaboosha... that sucks. I think, maybe... I have never seen it.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 04 Jun 12 - 05:54 PM

"The fact that some (most) countries chose not to enter should not belittle the result."

fair dos it doesn't belittle the fact that they won the Olympics - but the suggestion was (even if it was jovial) that they were world champions. As only two teams entered the Olympics and neither were top sides it could it no way be described as a world championship. That was my point!

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: GUEST,Fossil at work
Date: 05 Jun 12 - 01:23 AM

I might just stick another oar in and recall that I sang in the Rugby World Cup Anthem Choir when the US national team played Australia in Wellington and the local Kiwi crowd really got behind them (as you might expect, given the usual trans-Tasman rivalry!). They - the USA - were a very impressive team and obviously have lots of potential for the future.

Singing was good fun, too - though I didn't appreciate the way the arranger had organised the ending of the "Star Spangled Banner", where us basses had to hit a fortissimo high E and hold it for two bars... I could hardly shout at all by the time we took our places for the match!

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: GUEST,Rog Peek
Date: 05 Jun 12 - 05:40 PM

USA squad has just been announced for June test matches against canada, Georgia and Italy. Don't suppose there are many household names in N. America.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 03:40 PM

Not one, for me. Rugby hasn't caught on... yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: CET
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 07:00 PM

The Canada-U.S. game this coming Saturday will be live-streamed. K.O. At 2 p.m. Local time. See www.rugbycanada.ca

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 08:39 PM

Thanks CET.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: Rog Peek
Date: 08 Jun 12 - 02:30 PM

With New Zealand vs Ireland , Australia vs Wales, South Africa vs England and Argentina vs Italy also taking place on Saturday, and this being the first time since the world cup that these teams have had a chance at each other, there will be great interest in the rugby world.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 05:00 AM

And Scotland beat the Aussies for the second time in a row this week and it was for the first time in Australia for 30 years. Who'd have thought after the way the 6 Nations went from a reasonable start on to a downward trajectory!

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: Rog Peek
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 08:39 AM

Ireland and Wales both lost, let's hope England can do better!

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: Rog Peek
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 02:15 PM

'Fraid not, still it was a good effort.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 02:44 PM

Rugby is actually a fairly popular amateur sport in the US. Rugby leagues and clubs are all over the place. Most of the guys who play are onetime football players who've taken up rugby because organized adult amateur tackle football is almost nonexistent.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: CET
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 07:14 PM

Canada 28 - U.S. 25. it was a hell of a game - probably shouldn't have bee quite so close, but the Canadians were a trifle sloppy at times, and the U.S. fought very hard.

Subject: RE: BS: Yankee rugby??!!
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jun 12 - 08:18 PM

Wish I had been able to see the Canuck rugby game. Had to settle with watching UEFA.