Speaking out on a disturbing trend in rugby

First topic message reminder :

Rugby is a sport played by people of different sizes. Depending on where your position is on the field, rugby can have a varying impact on your physical appearance. If you play in the forwards, the ears are a good indication of where you play. The state of your jersey at the end of the game often is an indication of the level of contribution you have made during the game.

There is a new breed of player who wishes to confuse the public in the assessment of their contribution. Before you were able to see such players confined to the forwards. It didn't matter so much then. It matched their gnarled image in terms of physicality and appearance. There was nothing deliberate about it, other than letting nature take its course. No attempt to craft it into something slicker and more appealing to the female supporters. Indeed, because of this deliberate indifference, maybe there were some who felt drawn to these types of players. Their base animal instincts kicked in and there was a strange allure much like the last Tsarina of Russia felt towards a certain priest with mythical powers. From a rugby perspective, you could appreciate or at least acknowledge an advantage to doing this. In the forwards, intimidation is a big part of the game and what better way to send out a message of intent and intimidation than to do what these players have done. I have no problem with this and actually think there are quite a few players who have benefited from doing so.

However, I feel I must speak out on a plague that is currently afflicting a disturbing amount of players in the backs. Players who have no right to do what they are doing. Players who are fooling no one but themselves. You might argue that there are a few whose image may be enhanced by doing what they're doing. Yet often when we try to move away from an image or stereotype, we tend to swing too far in the other extreme. I watched the Reds vs Crusaders match last night and felt that things had gone too far. The time has come to speak out. Let's pretend no longer that this sham can continue. The IRB should step in and stamp out this vile practice that is creeping into our beloved game. Rather than try to look all the same, we should celebrate that every player has a specific role on the field and that the 15 players are not all the same and possess the same characteristics.

There are players who are not there for their brawn or their aggression. Others possess guile and trickery. Yet trickery with their hands and their feet. There is a growing section who are trying to convince us of something they are not. Well it's time they knew they are not fooling anyone except themselves. It's high time they realised that our patience for such charlatanry is well and truly spent. We demand no more. They need not return to our perception of what they should look like. But they have to realise that they cannot be something they are not. You cannot make a striking duck out of a swan nor can you make a bear out of a wily fox. It's time these players faced up to the facts and return to their previous form and forget about their delusions of being something they quite evidently can and never will be.

Do you know of what I speak?

Try the thread Things that have no place in rugby Secret. You had the answer all along. It's just that you chose not to believe it.

Caught that one Kia. So you were just burning us slowly over some hot coals with this one? You sadist!

You're the one who said don't tell me. I stupidly thought there would be more.  

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:You're the one who said don't tell me. I stupidly thought there would be more.  

So I'm a masochist...what can I say

Don't worry. I'm a Canterbury fan so I'm definitely a Sadist too.  

I watched Silence of the Lambs last night and by the end was brimming with confidence in my own ability to decode any riddle or anagram thanks to the teachings of the master of such things, Dr Lecter. If nobody gets it kia, you might at least be pleased to know that with 4 paragraphs and the many hint-laden comments since, you have completely dismantled that confidence. I hope you're happy!    

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Rugby is a sport played by people of different sizes. Depending on where your position is on the field, rugby can have a varying impact on your physical appearance. If you play in the forwards, the ears are a good indication of where you play. The state of your jersey at the end of the game often is an indication of the level of contribution you have made during the game.

There is a new breed of player who wishes to confuse the public in the assessment of their contribution. Before you were able to see such players confined to the forwards. It didn't matter so much then. It matched their gnarled image in terms of physicality and appearance. There was nothing deliberate about it, other than letting nature take its course. No attempt to craft it into something slicker and more appealing to the female supporters. Indeed, because of this deliberate indifference, maybe there were some who felt drawn to these types of players. Their base animal instincts kicked in and there was a strange allure much like the last Tsarina of Russia felt towards a certain priest with mythical powers. From a rugby perspective, you could appreciate or at least acknowledge an advantage to doing this. In the forwards, intimidation is a big part of the game and what better way to send out a message of intent and intimidation than to do what these players have done. I have no problem with this and actually think there are quite a few players who have benefited from doing so.

However, I feel I must speak out on a plague that is currently afflicting a disturbing amount of players in the backs. Players who have no right to do what they are doing. Players who are fooling no one but themselves. You might argue that there are a few whose image may be enhanced by doing what they're doing. Yet often when we try to move away from an image or stereotype, we tend to swing too far in the other extreme. I watched the Reds vs Crusaders match last night and felt that things had gone too far. The time has come to speak out. Let's pretend no longer that this sham can continue. The IRB should step in and stamp out this vile practice that is creeping into our beloved game. Rather than try to look all the same, we should celebrate that every player has a specific role on the field and that the 15 players are not all the same and possess the same characteristics.

There are players who are not there for their brawn or their aggression. Others possess guile and trickery. Yet trickery with their hands and their feet. There is a growing section who are trying to convince us of something they are not. Well it's time they knew they are not fooling anyone except themselves. It's high time they realised that our patience for such charlatanry is well and truly spent. We demand no more. They need not return to our perception of what they should look like. But they have to realise that they cannot be something they are not. You cannot make a striking duck out of a swan nor can you make a bear out of a wily fox. It's time these players faced up to the facts and return to their previous form and forget about their delusions of being something they quite evidently can and never will be.

Do you know of what I speak?

This reminded me of the episode of Father Ted when the MC was about to announce the winner of the King of the Sheep competition

"Well, it's been an easy decision. There's one out-and-out winner; and, rather than waste time with the speech, I'll get on with the job of announcing the winner, who, today, has come first in this competition to see who the winner is in the King of the Sheep competition that we have all come to today, wondering who indeed will it be who wins the prize of King of the Sheep. The winner of this year's King of the Sheep competition is..".

Knowsit17 wrote:I watched Silence of the Lambs last night and by the end was brimming with confidence in my own ability to decode any riddle or anagram thanks to the teachings of the master of such things, Dr Lecter. If nobody gets it kia, you might at least be pleased to know that with 4 paragraphs and the many hint-laden comments since, you have completely dismantled that confidence. I hope you're happy!    

The truth was out there Knowsit...and in here. It's just that we didn't realise some shaving foam and razor was needed to uncover it.

Nice one Submachine. I prefer the milk float analogy when Ted strategically moves the boxes out of the way for Dougal only to knock them all down with his car.

Despite a deadline I was still finding ways to avoid work yesterday. Much better today. Only three hours of faffing around today.

SecretFly wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:I watched Silence of the Lambs last night and by the end was brimming with confidence in my own ability to decode any riddle or anagram thanks to the teachings of the master of such things, Dr Lecter. If nobody gets it kia, you might at least be pleased to know that with 4 paragraphs and the many hint-laden comments since, you have completely dismantled that confidence. I hope you're happy!    

The truth was out there Knowsit...and in here. It's just that we didn't realise some shaving foam and razor was needed to uncover it.

I'm strongly inclined to agree, my immediate first guess was scrum caps. But sitting here and rubbing my chin in confusion the answer has crept to me.

Growing a beard and following through with it is darned hard, I've tried once, and freaked out when it got out of control. Didn't want to trim it as I thought it would look contrived. Ended up just lopping it all off. So on rugby players, it's gotta be scruffy right? No trimming around the side of the neck or running a number 3 blade through it. A manicured beard looks worse than a grisly Adams, especially on hard as nails backs.

confucius say.... passionate kiss like spider's web.....both lead to fly's undoing.

The only man's beard is one about three or four weeks old and no trimming.

Or in other words, the one I adopt when I'm too lazy to shave

BOD say... fly undone by passionate kiss die happy.

[quote="SecretFly"The only man's beard is one about three or four weeks old and no trimming.
Or in other words, the one I adopt when I'm too lazy to shave

BOD say... fly undone by passionate kiss die happy.[/quote]

I call that the flu beard. Best thing about it is shaving shapes into it when your eventually well enough to consider showering again.

SecretFly wrote:The only man's beard is one about three or four weeks old and no trimming.

Or in other words, the one I adopt when I'm too lazy to shave

BOD say... fly undone by passionate kiss die happy.

I've been there before, more recently than I'd care to admit. It gets to the point where it's beyond being a simple few drags of the razor after a shower and becomes a strenuous task that I have to devote 30 mins to an hour on, the thought of which just puts me off for longer and makes it worse. Eventually it must be confronted, like a faulty boiler or a long overdue meeting with your least favourite relative. After my last shave I got a written warning from the Department of Environment to cease my harmful conduct against forestry.