The UAFC

Snipe Watson wrote:
Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean that Russ didn't see it. Russ, former prop, specialises in unseen work......

Oh that is excellent a chara.

StandUp wrote: How do I explain to my ten year old rugby playing son (with a burgeoning interest in f#cking nancyball) that that kind of play is not what we want in rugby.

Indeed. We only want the type of cheating in rugby which we approve of. In almost every play in rugby you will find somebody trying to overstep the laws of the game to gain an advantage which is by definition cheating. If they weren't we'd be pretty upset about their lack of commitment to the cause.

Note- I didn't hear the comment from Barnes but if it is as you claim I wouldn't defend it or him. Neither would I call him a scumbag. I'd prefer than in this game we wouldn't decend to such a name-calling level. However the sky won't fall in when some feel the need to do so.

"We only want the type of cheating in rugby which we approve of."

What do we approve of? And since when did cheating equal commitment? What a ridiculous statement. Did Carl Hayman lack commitment to his team when he made the decision not to cheat?

As the guy says rugby is full of small cheats such as the jersey holding in the line out - playing the man and not the ball when rucking , breaking before the ball is out of a scrum all small cheats

Big cheats are bending fingers -- stamping toes and fingers nipping etc

Players cheat naturally coaches would turn a blind eye provided the player can do it without being penalised but do it and get penalised now that is something different .
There is rarely a ruck or maul which takes place where if the ref blew his whistle for a penalty he would be wrong. Which is one reason why ruck and maul offences should be free kicks and not penalties unless committed inside the 22



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

StandUp wrote:"We only want the type of cheating in rugby which we approve of."

What do we approve of? And since when did cheating equal commitment? What a ridiculous statement. Did Carl Hayman lack commitment to his team when he made the decision not to cheat?

I don't believe I asserted that Hayman lacked commitment. I didn't comment at all on his action or inaction. I did however say I wouldn't defend a comment which encouraged the type of cynical play it is alleged to have supported.

As for what do we approve of - Are you suggesting that we don't support or desire our team to gain advantages in games by operating outside the laws of the game? I'd suggest you'd be in a minority there. I've seen numerous calls on this board for Ulster to develop the euphemistically named street-smarts in order to better compete with more savvy teams. I would agree with those calls as it happens, and would do so more readily if I didn't believe that Ulster already have some players well capable of engaging in that type of play.

Granted I may have muddied the waters slightly here and I wasn't necessarily trying to equate the type of cynicism allegedly encouraged here with the type of illegal play we expect in games. That may be have been in response to calling Barnes a scumbag which I would say is a little extreme and entirely uncalled for.

He substituted the word cheating for professionalism lol. So it's OK if you're getting paid!

Shan wrote:

Snipe Watson wrote:
Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean that Russ didn't see it. Russ, former prop, specialises in unseen work......

Oh that is excellent a chara.

Thank you my friend I thought it had fallen on barren ground.....