Jump to content


TotalRL.com Shop Alert: Last Ordering Date for Free Pre-Xmas Delivery within UK: 2pm Thursday 18th December!!
Rugby League Yearbook 2014/15 The Forbidden Game League Express League Express Gift Card Rugby League World Rugby League World Gift Card
Buy Now £14.99 Buy Now £14.99 / Kindle Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards Print / Digital Subscription Gift Cards



Photo
- - - - -

Bring back the biff


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#41 chuffer

chuffer
  • Coach
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 08:59 PM


Go on...


Lol...... "pics or STFU"

#42 Bomballey

Bomballey
  • Coach
  • 799 posts

Posted 08 June 2013 - 09:36 PM

I've never been to a game in the past 35 or so years where there has been a bit of a dust up and then the crowd has gone silent and gone all Daily Wail and said thats terrible we must stop it now.

How many shout 'get into them' vs 'oh no thats wrong think of the children watching'?
Like it or not physical intimidation is part of the game - its totally designed that way. But it has to be legal, controlled sensibly, etc.

Whilst blatant one-sided thuggery should be outlawed and dealt with appropriately (Meli's tackle on Hall for instance). But a dust up where both parties take part equally should be 10 mins in the bin to cool down.


Nail been hit on the head there.....

#43 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 11:38 AM

Interesting blog/article:

http://m.brisbanetim...0608-2nwm4.html

This is right imho.

We see the odd flare up at the moment. If we stopped punishing it we would see more. It would quickly become known as a thugs game and why would parents take their kids to play that.

#44 Just Browny

Just Browny
  • Coach
  • 11,861 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 12:16 PM

I think we've had the balance right for most of the SL era. The odd flare-up, usually sorted by two yellows and the odd red where things went too far. I'd have liked to see Gallen binned and told that any further slip-ups would end his participation.

I don't like seeing players sent off for a bit of handbags, it tends to spoil the game. Sinbinnings put an end to it in all but the rarest of occasions.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.


#45 tim2

tim2
  • Coach
  • 8,378 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 01:38 PM

Our Open Age team tried to bring it back yesterday. I now await a grovelling appearance before the discipline committee.
North Derbyshire Chargers - join the stampede

Marathon in 2015 - the hard work starts now

#46 Pyjamarama

Pyjamarama
  • Players
  • 9 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 03:21 PM

An article in WA Today http://www.watoday.c...0608-2nwm4.html

gives statistics for child participation in various sports.The article shows that participation rates for rugby league have remained static since 2006 whilst participation rates for soccer, AFL (& even netball and basketball) have all significantly increased over the same period.

 

One of the reasons given for this is that there is a trend for parents not wanting their children to play league due to the illegal biff seen on TV. In effect, it frightens some parents away from the game.

 

Due to the physical contact of league there will inevitably be occasions of violence during some games, but in my opinion, if we are wanting to attract as many people to play and participate in the game as possible we must adopt a zero tolerance to illegal violent play.

 

The worlds most popular team sport (soccer) appears to go from strength to strength without any clamour to make the game more violent. RL is a tough enough game as it is without encouraging some bonehead that it's ok to knock someone's head off. If the best idea that we as a sport can come up with for attracting new fans and players is to 'bring back the biff' we really are in trouble.

 

 

There's also another article in the Sydney Morning Herald that makes depressing reading.

http://www.smh.com.a...0608-2nwtr.html




 



#47 ChrisGS

ChrisGS
  • Coach
  • 359 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 03:45 PM

just because people are intersted in watching fighting rl players on the web does not mean we should allow or even worse encourage it.

 

It's not just the web, it's on tv and live at grounds. The occasional fight is proving to be a popular aspect of the game and with that in mind I don't see why we should get super excessive on it. What's the benefit. Is there any?

 

Interesting blog/article:

http://m.brisbanetim...0608-2nwm4.html

This is right imho.

We see the odd flare up at the moment. If we stopped punishing it we would see more. It would quickly become known as a thugs game and why would parents take their kids to play that.

 

I couldn't disagree more with that and I've said as much for a while now(on other forums.) I really think that it's a delusion and a grave mistake for people to believe that if the game came down harder on unsavoury incidents a) that parents, mums, whoever, would be more inclined to favour the game and B) that the incidents themselves would stop.

 

A couple of points I'd like to make as to why I don't think there's any truth or logic to the idea. The main being that we can already point to examples of fighting prevailing over stronger punishment. Super League takes an approach which is  more hardline than the NRL, but despite the punishment being stronger, fights tend to be more frequent at SL level than at NRL level. A clearer example would be Top 14 in rugby union, a competition which is blighted by fighting. Being a union competition, bans for fighting in Top 14 are very, very strong, and yet the number of fights, all-in brawls in particular, is above and beyond what we see in the NRL/SL.

 

Assuming we can agree that even with red cards and 4-8 week bans for fighting in the game that fighting would continue at a similar rate, wouldn't we then be unnecessarily shooting ourselves in the foot if we condemned fighting too much? Look at the excessive media criticism and the attacks upon the sport in Australia right now, at a time when the occasional  fight isn't frowned upon all that much by fans or by the NRL. Do you think that these media attacks would cease to exist if a fight happened but the NRL were harder on punishing it? Let's imagine every fight is a red card and a 4 game suspension, in that hypothetical world is the media any less critical of Gallens actions. No, I'd posit that they'd be even more critical. Not only is the sport now a sport for thugs and mungos, but the players are completely out of control and don't even care for the harsh punishment given out. Fights in sports where fights are harshly punished are usually received much worse by the media, it's a more shocking sight.

 

And so it'd be an error of judgement to think that the NRL, or Super League, coming down hard on fights is going to have any real influence on the way in which the media report said fights or the way in which parents perceive them. Rugby league is already considered by many to be a thugs game and with that said my more controversial position is that it's doubtful you'd change the perception because it's not one that's based on fact or reason, it has its roots in class bigotry and vulgar prejudice.

 

The article you post is good evidence for what I'm saying. Soccer out there is assosciated with the middle class; positive attributes are given to the game because of it. Rugby league down under is assosciated with the working class and is viewed negatively because of it. Don't you think it odd that football, a sport much maligned in Europe by the media as being a sport for the uncouth, is perceived as being the exact opposite in Australia. Is there any real difference between football in Europe and football in Australia other than the class of people who tend to play it? Is there?

 

If rugby league were a sport of the upper class could you say without breaking out in a fit of laughter that media and parents would negatively assosciate it with thugs and lambast it at every opportunity as the neanderthals game of choice. When I last checked rugby union somehow escapes these criticisms and participation roadblocks, even though it's a game filled with every unimaginable thuggish act, it has its brawl, it has extreme violence in rucks, it has players breaking their necks in scrums, it has all of what rugby league has and more - and the media are silent, parents aren't all that concerned.

 

Is there anybody on this forum, truly, who doesn't think the issues that we're discussing go deeper than their surface-level appearance? It's unimaginable to me that somebody could think to dispute that the biggest problem for rugby league is not that there's a 3-second fight every 30 games, but that the game hasn't been able to shake its negative class connotations.

 

Rugby league is going to be seen by certain elements of society as a backwards scummy sport unfit for their little angels to play. You can come down hard on shoulder charges and fights and it'd be no less true, it's the way it is. Reason being is that those things are simply cruxes used to legitimise prejudice views already held by bigoted people. As long as rugby league is seen as a working class game, and the working class is looked upon with distaste, there are going to be parents who think their children are too good for the sport. A sin bin, a red card, a 1 game suspension, a 14 week suspension, it doesn't matter.

 

I remember similar articles from Australia last year when James Graham bit Billy Slater. Odd, I never saw the Aussie media making the same point regarding soccer when Suarez bit Ivanovic. People seem to be rather selective in what outrages and disgusts them. They disgust ME. They only want to think of the children when it suits their ingrained prejudice.

 

I'm not for a moment saying it should be open slather, but as a sport I think we're close to having the balance right as it is. We shouldn't be punishing players to the same degree as other sports because we're not other sports; there's a contextual difference between biff in rugby league and biff in the middle of a round of golf. The relative indiscipline and violence is not the same. You're going to get tempers boiling over in our sport every now and then, especially in highly intense, big games. Punishment ought to reflect this, punishment at the moment does reflect this, lax punishment in origin and internationls reflect this. That's why I think sin bins and a game suspension would suffice for most incidents. Less often violent acts should warrant a red card and a longer suspension, although I don't personally think Gallens act fits the bill as I don't accept the 'he had his hands down' defence... Then again I'm a NSW fan! 

 

In all, if fans of other sports or parents in general are too stupid to appreciate the difference between a punch in rugby league and a punch in soccer then that's their loss. If there are parents who don't understand that what takes place and is accepted at the highest level of the game is not acceptable for 6 year olds, again, it's their loss. I don't think it's wise to try and sanitise the sport under the illusion that by doing so people who object to the game are going to suddenly do a 180.

 

As a sport we should be competing with other codes, with parents, on our own terms, playing to our own strengths, our own values, our own history. If other sports, other people, have different values, conflicting values, then that's their prerogative. What business is it of theirs what we do as a sport? Why are they so concerned with what we're doing? It's not enough that they deny their own kids the opportunity to play, they want to run around with their propaganda campaigns trying to get stop other peoples childrens playing the game?

 

And I promise this is my last point, but I think that it can be comforting to identify specific elements of the game as standing between widespread popularity and mainstream acceptance, and where we are as a sport now. Time will tell but I'd be happy to put my house on the fact - I don't have a house but entertain me  :drag:  - playing numbers over the next year or two aren't going to sky-rocket just because we've made illegal the shoulder charge. Someone involved in the game at a real grass roots level could tell me their experience, but I'm doubtful, to say the least, that the day after the ban half of the middle class mums across the country brought their little Sebastien to play rugby league. And if they haven't already then I equally doubt that they'd do it if we clamped down hard on fighting.

 

The crime rates for the black community could drop to the lowest in the country tomorrow and it wouldn't stop racists being racist towards black people, just as we could start banning fighting and it isn't going to stop the anti-league sentiment which is prevelant amongst a large number of society. Cruxes to legitimise ingrained prejudice, as I said. Fighting is a non-issue.



#48 ChrisGS

ChrisGS
  • Coach
  • 359 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 03:53 PM

The worlds most popular team sport (soccer) appears to go from strength to strength without any clamour to make the game more violent. RL is a tough enough game as it is without encouraging some bonehead that it's ok to knock someone's head off. If the best idea that we as a sport can come up with for attracting new fans and players is to 'bring back the biff' we really are in trouble.

 

The worlds most popular team sport is blighted by violence at the grass roots. And if we're to accept that violence in the sport has stalled participation, why did this begin only in 2006, and why is it only evidenced in Australia. Why doesn't violence in sport stop French rugby in its track. How did we in England manage to break the 100k player mark in 2011/2012 if violence in sport is such a concern? Could it be that the media in Australia, the filth that they are, are misrepresenting the statistics and peddling conjecture to suit their already established agenda. I would think a more likely explanation for stalled playing numbers is the very real concern over the number and size of the Polynesian kids playing the game, that and the fact the media try to destroy and undermine it every chance they get.

 

Addressed the rest of your post with my last.



#49 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 07:08 PM

Cant be bothered to read that whole post, especially with the nonsense about 4-8 match bans. The balance is right - the only ones asking fir chsnge are those who want mire brawling. Seriously have a word with yourself.

#50 chuffer

chuffer
  • Coach
  • 3,741 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 07:16 PM

It's not just the web, it's on tv and live at grounds. The occasional fight is proving to be a popular aspect of the game and with that in mind I don't see why we should get super excessive on it. What's the benefit. Is there any?

 

 

I couldn't disagree more with that and I've said as much for a while now(on other forums.) I really think that it's a delusion and a grave mistake for people to believe that if the game came down harder on unsavoury incidents a) that parents, mums, whoever, would be more inclined to favour the game and B) that the incidents themselves would stop.

 

A couple of points I'd like to make as to why I don't think there's any truth or logic to the idea. The main being that we can already point to examples of fighting prevailing over stronger punishment. Super League takes an approach which is  more hardline than the NRL, but despite the punishment being stronger, fights tend to be more frequent at SL level than at NRL level. A clearer example would be Top 14 in rugby union, a competition which is blighted by fighting. Being a union competition, bans for fighting in Top 14 are very, very strong, and yet the number of fights, all-in brawls in particular, is above and beyond what we see in the NRL/SL.

 

Assuming we can agree that even with red cards and 4-8 week bans for fighting in the game that fighting would continue at a similar rate, wouldn't we then be unnecessarily shooting ourselves in the foot if we condemned fighting too much? Look at the excessive media criticism and the attacks upon the sport in Australia right now, at a time when the occasional  fight isn't frowned upon all that much by fans or by the NRL. Do you think that these media attacks would cease to exist if a fight happened but the NRL were harder on punishing it? Let's imagine every fight is a red card and a 4 game suspension, in that hypothetical world is the media any less critical of Gallens actions. No, I'd posit that they'd be even more critical. Not only is the sport now a sport for thugs and mungos, but the players are completely out of control and don't even care for the harsh punishment given out. Fights in sports where fights are harshly punished are usually received much worse by the media, it's a more shocking sight.

 

And so it'd be an error of judgement to think that the NRL, or Super League, coming down hard on fights is going to have any real influence on the way in which the media report said fights or the way in which parents perceive them. Rugby league is already considered by many to be a thugs game and with that said my more controversial position is that it's doubtful you'd change the perception because it's not one that's based on fact or reason, it has its roots in class bigotry and vulgar prejudice.

 

The article you post is good evidence for what I'm saying. Soccer out there is assosciated with the middle class; positive attributes are given to the game because of it. Rugby league down under is assosciated with the working class and is viewed negatively because of it. Don't you think it odd that football, a sport much maligned in Europe by the media as being a sport for the uncouth, is perceived as being the exact opposite in Australia. Is there any real difference between football in Europe and football in Australia other than the class of people who tend to play it? Is there?

 

If rugby league were a sport of the upper class could you say without breaking out in a fit of laughter that media and parents would negatively assosciate it with thugs and lambast it at every opportunity as the neanderthals game of choice. When I last checked rugby union somehow escapes these criticisms and participation roadblocks, even though it's a game filled with every unimaginable thuggish act, it has its brawl, it has extreme violence in rucks, it has players breaking their necks in scrums, it has all of what rugby league has and more - and the media are silent, parents aren't all that concerned.

 

Is there anybody on this forum, truly, who doesn't think the issues that we're discussing go deeper than their surface-level appearance? It's unimaginable to me that somebody could think to dispute that the biggest problem for rugby league is not that there's a 3-second fight every 30 games, but that the game hasn't been able to shake its negative class connotations.

 

Rugby league is going to be seen by certain elements of society as a backwards scummy sport unfit for their little angels to play. You can come down hard on shoulder charges and fights and it'd be no less true, it's the way it is. Reason being is that those things are simply cruxes used to legitimise prejudice views already held by bigoted people. As long as rugby league is seen as a working class game, and the working class is looked upon with distaste, there are going to be parents who think their children are too good for the sport. A sin bin, a red card, a 1 game suspension, a 14 week suspension, it doesn't matter.

 

I remember similar articles from Australia last year when James Graham bit Billy Slater. Odd, I never saw the Aussie media making the same point regarding soccer when Suarez bit Ivanovic. People seem to be rather selective in what outrages and disgusts them. They disgust ME. They only want to think of the children when it suits their ingrained prejudice.

 

I'm not for a moment saying it should be open slather, but as a sport I think we're close to having the balance right as it is. We shouldn't be punishing players to the same degree as other sports because we're not other sports; there's a contextual difference between biff in rugby league and biff in the middle of a round of golf. The relative indiscipline and violence is not the same. You're going to get tempers boiling over in our sport every now and then, especially in highly intense, big games. Punishment ought to reflect this, punishment at the moment does reflect this, lax punishment in origin and internationls reflect this. That's why I think sin bins and a game suspension would suffice for most incidents. Less often violent acts should warrant a red card and a longer suspension, although I don't personally think Gallens act fits the bill as I don't accept the 'he had his hands down' defence... Then again I'm a NSW fan! 

 

In all, if fans of other sports or parents in general are too stupid to appreciate the difference between a punch in rugby league and a punch in soccer then that's their loss. If there are parents who don't understand that what takes place and is accepted at the highest level of the game is not acceptable for 6 year olds, again, it's their loss. I don't think it's wise to try and sanitise the sport under the illusion that by doing so people who object to the game are going to suddenly do a 180.

 

As a sport we should be competing with other codes, with parents, on our own terms, playing to our own strengths, our own values, our own history. If other sports, other people, have different values, conflicting values, then that's their prerogative. What business is it of theirs what we do as a sport? Why are they so concerned with what we're doing? It's not enough that they deny their own kids the opportunity to play, they want to run around with their propaganda campaigns trying to get stop other peoples childrens playing the game?

 

And I promise this is my last point, but I think that it can be comforting to identify specific elements of the game as standing between widespread popularity and mainstream acceptance, and where we are as a sport now. Time will tell but I'd be happy to put my house on the fact - I don't have a house but entertain me  :drag:  - playing numbers over the next year or two aren't going to sky-rocket just because we've made illegal the shoulder charge. Someone involved in the game at a real grass roots level could tell me their experience, but I'm doubtful, to say the least, that the day after the ban half of the middle class mums across the country brought their little Sebastien to play rugby league. And if they haven't already then I equally doubt that they'd do it if we clamped down hard on fighting.

 

The crime rates for the black community could drop to the lowest in the country tomorrow and it wouldn't stop racists being racist towards black people, just as we could start banning fighting and it isn't going to stop the anti-league sentiment which is prevelant amongst a large number of society. Cruxes to legitimise ingrained prejudice, as I said. Fighting is a non-issue.

 

run that by me again.....



#51 Padge

Padge
  • Coach
  • 18,347 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 07:43 PM

run that by me again.....

He said...

 

...something, what I don't know, but he said it.



Visit my photography site www.padge.smugmug.com
Radio 5 Live: Saturday 14 April 2007
Dave Whelan "In Wigan rugby will always be king"

 

This country's wealth was created by men in overalls, it was destroyed by men in suits.


#52 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 09:17 PM

Ok, so nobody's reading that long post by ChrisGS, just mocking it.........he's not a regular poster, so maybe thats why.

There are some good points in there......and a re worthy of respect and understanding from an Australian point of view

 

Everybody is making the incorrect assumption that people are wanting a return to endless fighting, blatant violence and out and out thuggery whilst standing on their righteous pedestal.

I'd ask to be pointed specifically to those post extracts, as I can't see them.

 

Go on.....



#53 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,738 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 09:31 PM

post #1



#54 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 09:50 PM

Don't think so



#55 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 15,831 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 10:05 PM


Don't think so

well yes it is. he's asking for changes to the application of rules round fighting.

#56 shaun mc

shaun mc
  • Coach
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 09 June 2013 - 10:11 PM

well yes it is. he's asking for changes to the application of rules round fighting.

Ok, he is.....

 

But as I said - "wanting a return to endless fighting, blatant violence and out and out thuggery"??? Don't think so



#57 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 20,493 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 01:01 AM

In relation to football, many older fans miss the days of the more physical game. I certainly do. That's not to say I want to see all in brawls every 5 minutes or whatever but modern football is too clean. Most of the 1966 WC winning team would be sent off today after 5 minutes (certainly Jack Charlton & possibly Nobby Stiles)

#58 joe elliot

joe elliot
  • Coach
  • 502 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 11:42 AM

All most people want is for fighting to be punished with a yellow card and the disciplinary to not give lengthy bans.
Nobody is wanting fights every five minutes this is a statement from the people who want to sanitise the game.
waddell

#59 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,638 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 11:51 AM

God there are some sensitive delicate souls on here aren't there. I love all this faux outrage and morality and the 'won't somebody think of the children' nonsense.

As someone has said there's a huge difference between nasty cheap shots and a square off between 2 players. The Origin game improved immensely on Wednesday after Gallen gave Myles' chin a bit of a tickle. It gets the blood pumping for the players and the fans.

When JP put Willie Mason on his 'arris I bet even those objectors on here were cheering.


Both your examples show that 'the biff' still exists. Somebody takes a liberty in a collision game and the consequence is a smack round the chops.
I don't have a problem with it.
But the original poster says we no longer have this when clearly we do: so he must want something else. What is that something else? If its the cheap thuggery that was part of the game and to a large extent no longer exists then personally I don't want it back
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#60 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 3,787 posts

Posted 10 June 2013 - 11:56 AM

Both your examples show that 'the biff' still exists. Somebody takes a liberty in a collision game and the consequence is a smack round the chops.
I don't have a problem with it.
But the original poster says we no longer have this when clearly we do: so he must want something else. What is that something else? If its the cheap thuggery that was part of the game and to a large extent no longer exists then personally I don't want it back

 

Quite.

 

If people want thuggery, then there's always Rugby Union where being raked with studs is common place I'm led to believe.


The Unicorn is not a Goose,




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users