Game must stomp out the violence

[welshrugbyfan]

Forwards grab each other on the field, the backs do it in the showers.

[Sheikh]

AH, the article says that in order for rugby to stamp out the 'nastiness', it ought to look to American Football. It then contains some massive mistakes about American Football.

American Football is not free of 'nastiness' due to padding, or due to outlawing spearing. It's not free of nastiness at all, but you don't get things like gouging because there's no contest once the ball's stopped moving. Therefore, it isn't really comparable to rugby at all.

I've heard so many people over the years talk such twaddle about American Football I sometimes lose focus when it happens.

If Michael Donaldson wants to write an article about how gouging is a dreadful thing, I'm all for it, but he shouldn't try and dress it up by referring to a sport he knows nothing about; it undermines his argument.

[AndyS]

He probably sees it as a game where the whistle blows and the jolly fat guys all cuddle while the skinny guys play keepie-off.

[Flamethrower]

If Michael Donaldson wants to write an article about how gouging is a dreadful thing, I'm all for it, but he shouldn't try and dress it up by referring to a sport he knows nothing about; it undermines his argument.

If you read the article without looking to go on a misguided rant, you would have noticed that Michael Donaldson pointed out that the main difference was that the contest for the ball stopped at the tackle.

But the main difference between the two codes is that American football does not have a contest for the ball. In that regard it's a lot like league, with the play effectively ending with a tackle. With no ruck or maul there's no opportunity for players hidden at the bottom of a pile of bodies to do damage to their counterparts.

Nice rant though, Sheikh

[Burgs]

The Boks wear everything but the helmet but it hasn't seemed to make them less "nasty"...