Don't pick a fight with a squaddie

[MyUserName]

It doesn't really happen in scrums as your balls just aren't close enough to the opposition. Unless the scrum fallls apart of course, as international scrums invariably do. But generally you don't get punched in the goolies unless you're playing against French teams, and when English teams play French teams anything can happen and neither side is likely to be sweet and innocent. Usually you'll have a couple of 'enforcers' among your own forwards who will politely and diplomatically remind the opponent that kicks to the groin area are not appreciated, and then break his ribs in a ruck. Often that's the older players in the pack who aren't so good running around any more but can still deal out the physical.

I was told that in rugby the ref is almost irrelevant in preventing fouls. The reason people do not foul more is because they know it will get done back to them and that keeps things in check (to a point).

Is that correct?

[Mich the Tester]

The Aussies called Neath "the bag snatchers" back in the day.

Hmmm, Neath. Yes. I'm sure their mums love them.

[SupremeSpod]

I was told that in rugby the ref is almost irrelevant in preventing fouls. The reason people do not foul more is because they know it will get done back to them and that keeps things in check (to a point).

Is that correct?

There is a certain amount of "Knock-for-knock" that goes on, yes.

[Mich the Tester]

I was told that in rugby the ref is almost irrelevant in preventing fouls. The reason people do not foul more is because they know it will get done back to them and that keeps things in check (to a point).

Is that correct?

Yes, and these days at the higher levels you have videos, citing officers and often extra officials who watch the game and then cite players who've done something really over the top. I don't agree that refs have no influence though; they certainly can't see everything, but good refs can make their authority known to the players in ways that make most players think twice; for example a really good ref might shout something like 'blue 6, I'm watching you' as you run toward a ruck; not because he necessarily thinks blue 6 is a thug who's about to start something as he will probably say something to other players, but it makes a player aware that he might well get caught and carded if he does something stupid.

Personally I think the best refs are old forwards, but some of them can be a bit too gravitationally challenged to meet modern fitness standards which might explain why scrums are so piss-poorly officiated now and are frankly turning into a farce at the top levels; with all due respect, a super fit ref who's memorized all the laws but used to play on the wing doesn't have the foggiest clue what's actually going in the pack. I don't necessarily mean mucky stuff that's happening, but I think you have to have felt the full force of a high level scrum to understand why it's so difficult for players to stay bound or stay on their feet with the modern Set-Touch-Collapse routine. In some ways I found the 'hit' at scrumtime strangely fun as a player; it's pointless really, but it can give a slight psychological advantage if you get it right. But now that I've stopped playing and stand aside watching what I used to do I think it's absolutely stupid and scrums should be built slowly and deliberately with no 'hit' and strict application of the laws on putting the ball in straight and only pushing when the ball is on the ground between the front rows. That would give many players a chance to play longer before their shoulders turn into mush and would bring back the traditional skill of the role of hooker.

I'm starting to sound like Brian Moore, but I agree with him on these matters.

[Mich the Tester]

How are the mighty fallen.

Can barely hear the chant of "Neaf Neaf Neaf" any more.

Yep, but Neath have gone the only way they could go; merging with others to form a stronger side than in shamateur days. Better than what happened to Orrell.

[fullyautomatix]

BBC News - 'Violence risk' after military tours

"Members of the armed forces returning from duty are more likely to commit violent offences than the rest of the population, a study suggests."

Or, maybe those with aggressive natures are more likely to join up in the first place?

This was proved beyond a doubt on CUK recently when two squaddies wanted to beat each other up in Bridgewater.

[vetran]

BBC News - 'Violence risk' after military tours

"Members of the armed forces returning from duty are more likely to commit violent offences than the rest of the population, a study suggests."

Or, maybe those with aggressive natures are more likely to join up in the first place?

I imagine its both.

Interesting thought came to me, how many offences does each one commit?


maybe they only commit one as a cry for help? Yet your average scrote commits hundreds?


Also are they more likely to be caught as they are more institutionalised?
Are they more likely to be arrested because they are more biddable?
Are they more likely to be convicted as they are institutionalised and basically decent?

[Mich the Tester]

I imagine its both.

Interesting thought came to me, how many offences does each one commit?


maybe they only commit one as a cry for help? Yet your average scrote commits hundreds?


Also are they more likely to be caught as they are more institutionalised?
Are they more likely to be arrested because they are more biddable?
Are they more likely to be convicted as they are institutionalised and basically decent?

Or less scared of going to prison having been in the army?

[shaunbhoy]

This was proved beyond a doubt on CUK recently when two wannabe squaddies wanted to beat each other up in Bridgewater.

ftfy