Off Topic Other Sports Thread

The rules mean the optimum tackle is a standing one to wrap the ball up off the ground to force a turnover and that immediately leads to more head clashes . RU is now more like NFL than this game and seems clearly influenced by performance enhancing drugs

please log in to view this image

 

the rules are crystal clear on head to head contact. wrap tackles are a small part of the game and usually not easy to do in the contact zone and never at speed.

the tackle is now very clearly defined as anything above the line of the shoulders = dangerous and it is straight into the 4 questions.



this is why now IMO its actually more dangerous to the attackers knees and defenders heads than anything else.

The chop tackle where one guy pins the attacker high and the other basically blazes through the lags low is now the done thing.

In the two cases of ireland v NZ. there was a clear referee interpretation at play on question 3/4

Both where accidental head collisions. One cost NZ the game with a red, the other cost NZ the game through no red.

The NZ lad went in full force to stop a guy upright. thats absolute no. you have to go waist height now.

the irish lad was not going in full force but still made head contact as the nz lad barrelled in as normal and it was an upright softer challenge.

this is what drives people mad.

BTW in BOTH games NZ had guys who had to be ordered off the park by each ref for HIA after the NZ doctor cleared them. neither player passed HIA. One played on for next phase before being ordered off. the second was just sent right off.


I agree that In general the game is faster, better surfaces and you don't have 15 men wriggling in the mud for 15mins over the one ruck as the score is 0-3 in the second half.

But leaving out the homoerotic nature of rugby in the olden days the reality is that there were/are performance enhancing drugs involved, players are bigger in wieght and height and the impacts are full speed.

the game simply has to adapt. there masses of hits up and down the park at full speed as the game is designed to clear the ruck zone so the cuddling on the gorund in a bath of mud is no longer a thing.

 

There were no performance enhancing drugs in RU back in the day though there were a number of performance lessening drugs in widespread use .
Performance enhanced players first appeared when the South Africans were allowed back and clearly had been using their isolation to tank up . The interflow with RL also encouraged the trend .

 

absolutely, but that doesn't change the fact that eddie jones is a cheating whinger and one of the prime targets of the rules to prevent him head shotting his way to glory using brute strength.

 

absolute nonsense - the protocols are a desperate attempt to limit the financial disaster that is heading towards Rugby .

 

Its fairly clear that there was a period where the softer rules were put in and certain people used them to gain advantage by head shooting opponents off the park with HIAs while not getting real penalties. The auto red card has been brought in specifically for the likes of NZ in general but eddie jones also who thought nothing of going for the head in rucks and tackles as it was a way to gain advantage.

Whether or not rugby is going to get a massive compensation bill for dementia is another matter. I'm talking about how jones is whinging about the rules that are there in their harshest possible form due to his own actions to take advantage.

 

Nope, no longer get runaway cars that are clearly miles better than everyone else. Some are still better than others but the gap isn't anywhere near as big.

Less about the cars and more about the driver; how can that be a bad thing?

Plenty of overtaking happened nowadays, it just isn't everyone second like you yanks want!

 

Lets talk F2.

the cars in F2 are actually totally identical specs.

the car power plants are much less powerful but theres still a bit of action and passing.

IMO its just bad tracks, bad rules meaning saving tyres and fuel and just plain bad owners.

F1 cars are too big and heavy, the tracks are too narrow and liberty are too into safety cars and getting the pack bunched up.

IMO the biggest difference is 20 cars on gird. the last time 26 cars took to the track in anger was 1995.

put more cars on track and theres more action... not rocket science.

same issue with engines. far far too complex. no road car wants these hybrid era engines. they are the past. it'll be electric or hydrogen in future.

So why foist it o nthe racing public. get some proper simpler engines back in the car.

 

Agree the tracks aren't great. However, I'm not sure you can blame the difference on the tracks when the F2 cars do the same calendar.

No way they'll go backwards on the engine's either, it's greener or nothing now...

 

They do half the same tracks.. mostly just Europe.

That awful miami track wasn't one I think?

F2 is all about driver but the usual applies. Teams will cheat every chance they get around the edges.

 

I don't watch all F2 races, only a few if it's on. Thought they did all of them but thinking about it, I now realise they don't because of the F1 game on PS4; they do 12 or 14 of them but they have a sprint and race at each.

 

Yeah most weekend in Europe there's the two races one after quali as a sprint and one before the big race.

 

Another big difference between F1 and F2 is driver quality. Once you get to F1, even the worst driver is still bloody good and there really is very marginal difference between drivers.

I haven't watched F2 in a long time, but I recall there used to be plenty of pretty awful drivers in F2. It actually made F2 more enjoyable. F1 it's all down to who has the best engine and is designated number one driver so gets the good parts. They probably will all have to use the same engine by the end of the decade the way things are going.


F2 has identical cars for a reason. Keeping costs down. F1 shouldn't have to do that. The insane money they spend on developing tiny parts that aren't locked down in the regulations yet (but will be as soon as they're proven effective) could be spent on developing entire cars and see teams grow throughout the season like the old days rather than whoever is strongest race one is going to be strongest all season more or less.

For a sport that is supposed to be the forefront of automobile development, it should have more actual development.

 

Love it when an unfancied rider just wins a stage after years of trying.............emotional stuff

 

Also love it as the French watch their last faint hope fade away .

 

You're worse than RHC ..........

 

Good man

 

I bet he wasn't a naturist.

 

Question for everyone, Where do people stand on sports persons representing a country not of their birth.

Here's the context that made me think, Watching the Athletics World Champs, the womens steeplechase had 2 Kenyan born runners, one running for Bahrain and the winner for Kazakhstan. Neither has any connection to the country they run for other than being given citizenship and a passport (and probably lots of money as well).

Further context, the girl who won Wimbledon competing for Kazakhstan (again!) was essentially paid to switch nationality and again she had no previous connection to the new country she represents.

Now I can see a number of ways gain the chance to represent another country they were not born in:
A) Naturalized citizen, lived in the country for most of their life and gained Citizenship; Example Mo Farah (ok Mo's situation was slightly more complicated, but you get the picture)
B) Parent(s) (or grandparents) were from the country the person has chosen to represent; Example Kevin Pietersen
C) Political defection, disagreeing with your home countries government; Example Martina Navratilova
D) Paid to, or motivated by money to switch nations; Example Elena Rybakina

Personally I'm fine with A,B and C. But can't agree on D, National representation should not be based on someone else paying you do it, also not a fan of Sport people changing nations once they have already represented a country at a senior/professional level (in any sport)

 

Rybakina was 18 at the time and her choice was switch to Kazkhstan for financial support or go to America and play the collegiate circuit, like Cameron Norrie did.s She only ranked 200 in the world at the time she switched. Norah Jeruto is slightly different in that she was African champion 6 years ago and one of the very best there's ever been over this event, setting the 3rd best ever time only a couple of months ago. Jeruto is definitely a case of financial doping for a gold medal because she was already that good. Rybakina's career could have gone south and been plagued by injuries, like Del Potro or Laura Robson, both with long term wrist injuries. Even Dominic Thiem who won his US Open 3 years ago has been out most of the time since then with a wrist injury and is only just making his way back on the tour.