|
Yeah the pic is funny and I enjoied it, and the ref also probably shouldn't have done it. I'm all for humanizing refs and not holding them to insane standards, but they are supposed to be impartial parts of the game. Especially at the international level I think keeping that appearance is important. However nothing should happen to him, other than maybe a superior saying, "hey that was kind of dumb" during his world cup grading meeting.
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
Who among us doesn't enjoy the breeze on your bottom half bits that Donald Ducking allows for? It's quite refreshing from time to time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Anyone got advice as to where to watch the pro14 games in the UK, preferably online? It looks like my only option is to pay for a sports channel packages which is double expensive for me as I don't even have a TV subscription. If you have a VPN you can grab an ESPN+ subscription for $5 a month or $50 a year. It is also in a bundle with Disney+ if you've got kids/are into Disney. I don't know if it's an option in the UK without a VPN.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Luckily I do have a VPN so I may look at that as an option. No kids though so the Disney bit won't help. Yeah def take a look at stand-alone ESPN+. They have Pro14, Super Rugby, and MLR(US league) for rugby and an absurd amount of other sports. I've never had any issues with the quality of the streams. And the price was right, at least for the US.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Stitecin posted:I wish World Rugby was using this lull in live sports to recruit new fans. If you turned a couple of exciting Wotld Cup games over to production companies who would add NFL style graphics explaining penalties, tactics, etc. and let Americans watch it for free on YouTube you might build some understanding of the game and have some new fans when things are back underway. This is really smart, and is actually pretty much what the NFL is doing. They have opened up their previously pay walled video service so you can watch old games and some docs that they produce. Hell NFL Network might even sell you some air time since free agency has calmed down. Show old games on there if you can. A lot of US households get it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
Vaders Jester posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/USARugby/status/1244715298361491456 This has been expected for a while. If they can get their ducks in a row it'll be fine in like two years.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:Man I wish my wife and I lived in New Zealand. Maybe then we could have nice things, like rugby and a police force that doesn't see themselves as an occupying army trying to kill our compatriots. I'm with yah man. They are actively looking for skilled people to move there, and if you're under 55 and have decent work experience and a bachelors you'd probably qualify. The distance to family is a huge killer for us though. Having lived in Aus previously it's just so goddamn far from everything, and NZ is even worse for that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:Well my wife and I are early/mid-30s and we both have PhDs and 10+ years teaching experience (and my wife's got tenure already). She does her research in SE Asia so it'd be much more convenient for her! Not that I expect there's a huuuuge demand in NZ for professors in two different humanities fields at the same university... Yeah you'd probably get a visa easily. Now a job in your field...............
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
As a white American I was always very confused by England fans singing Swing Low Sweet Chariot. To me it wasn't really about race, though I'll defer to the Black community on that one, it just struck me as cultural appropriation and having no understanding of where it came from or what it meant. Though considering how the British Museum was filled I guess it's par for the course really. Glad to see it go. Now the Chiefs need to change their name and racist rear end logo too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
goatface posted:It's the 10 second uncredited novelty ringtone of cultural appropriation. Ignorance by the individual doesn't change the root issue. And yes it isn't a huge issue on the scale of a lot of things, but to me it always made me uncomfortable since that song was too important and holy almost to be used in that way. And I'm white. It's a big deal in the Black community. That was what I meant by cultural appropriation. That the song was grabbed with 0 thought given to where it came from and what it means. I think that the Chiefs logo is a much bigger deal honestly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
bessantj posted:They only really have to change the logo, they can use local history and use a leader of the Dumnonii tribe as their 'chief'. Yes you're right. I think however it's better to do a full clean break than half measures. Easier to root out the bad fan behavior like wearing war bonnets or the chop if you totally walk away from the previous brand.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
Tyma posted:They also have this : Yeah that's not great, though pretty par for the course for sports teams that have Native American mascots. I mean hell FSU still does the flaming spear bit before football games. Still shocked the Seminole tribe gave them permission to do it. https://images.app.goo.gl/EzzZfZ5PTs7yNd3Z8
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
The 20-30% higher statistic that they use as the justification for the exclusionary policy I find lacks context. How does that compare to a forward running up against a scrum-half in injury likely hood? What about an out of shape old-boy on a social pitch with an in-shape 20-year-old? Are there specific situations that are more dangerous than others? That statistic is far to simplistic to me to be used as justification for this. I also have a hard time taking this seriously when trans people make up such a tiny portion of the population, but repeatedly get targeted for this type of exclusionary policy. This policy totally misses the part of risk analysis around how often an event is likely to happen. If we say that trans people are represented at twice the rate in rugby than in the world at large that is 1% of rugby players. At that rate you could expect to run into a trans player once every 6-7 games. And that one player will increase your risk of being injured by them specifically by 20-30%. Really a tiny overall increase. And again this assumes that trans people are 1% of rugby players, not the 0.6% they are of the larger population. There is risk is playing rugby(much like everything), but I don't think they have presented that the risk in trans women playing with cis women is actually that much greater. I also think that the benefit of including our trans sisters in the rugby community is greater than the higher risk of injury. drunk leprechaun fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jul 21, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
MyChemicalImbalance posted:I wish I was more literate when it comes to the science, but in contact sport is the difference in muscle and bone density not the main factor? Is that not what they decided on? So the "increased injury risk" doesn't take into account anything about how often players will play against trans women. That is a huge factor. Proper risk analysis takes into account how likely an event is to occur. So even if an event it horribly awful(which let's be clear trans and cis women playing rugby together is not) you don't protect against it if it almost never happens. This is the whole rationale behind flood tables and not protecting areas against 100-year floods. So again if 1% of rugby players are trans(a level that would have then represented at 2-3 times the general population) an increase in injury in interacting with those players specifically is minuscule. Honestly, player technique, general fitness, and other factors probably matter way more. Most importantly this is just another bigoted attempt at othering an already attacked community. Trans women are women and should play with other women. Full stop.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
Who wants to be they asked exactly 0 Native Americans about their branding being respectful or not?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
Smorgasbord posted:No, at least not in any reputable source I can find. Even if this is true, which without any sort of citations who knows, you're ignoring a huge part of risk calculation. Which is the likelihood of an event happening. Current estimates put the trans population at 0.6%. If we double this to 1% of female rugby players that means that you can expect one out of every 6-7 starting XV to be trans. So the likelihood of having an interaction on a pitch with a trans athlete is very low. Even if having a collision with a trans athlete while playing rugby, which again is likely an exceedingly rare event, without any documented proof that it is more dangerous there is no reason for the ban other than bigotry. As people have pointed out if the actual issue is rate of injury where is the data? Why don't we see the same scrutiny applied to men's rugby where we can have huge size differences? Where is the concern for them? The pearl clutching about "competitive advantage" is just an excuse for bigotry. There is no logical reason to further malign our trans brothers and sisters, especially when they already face such obstacles in their lives. Source for trans pop stat: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
Smorgasbord posted:Google anything to do with male v female strength, height, bone density, lung capacity, grip strength, muscle mass, etc, basically any and every athletic thing. Taking hormones for 12 months or 12 years or 120 years doesn't reverse those things. Not my job to be your research assistant but even starting with wikipedia - transgender athletes will get you plenty of sources. The case for transwomen's inclusion in women's sport is ideologically driven, not science driven. Actually it is 100% your job to provide evidence to back up your claims. That's how discourse works.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2020 13:19
|
|
|
I think what galls me personally about this is how people shout "fairness" and "advantages" in the transgender scare. If it is about that there where is the outrage about access to coaching, nutrition, and training? Where is the concern about much larger athletes going up against much smaller athletes in collision sports? Where is the concern about people like Michael Phelps who is several standard deviations from the human norm in ways that are critical to his success in swimming? Without people shouting about those things too I have to conclude that fairness is just a smokescreen. It never was about fairness. It is about discrimination and making one of the most marginalized communities on the planet go back to being invisible. In looking at this I found a good meta-study that looks at 8 articles and 31 policies. Like is below, but the bit that struck me is quoted. It's from the Results section of the abstract. Actual loving scientists posted:In relation to sport-related physical activity, this review found the lack of inclusive and comfortable environments to be the primary barrier to participation for transgender people. This review also found transgender people had a mostly negative experience in competitive sports because of the restrictions the sport’s policy placed on them. The majority of transgender competitive sport policies that were reviewed were not evidence-based. So to me they are saying that most trans athletes are being excluded for non-science-based reasons and that the primary effect of them is a negative impact on the trans athletes and their ability to participate. They do say that more research is needed which I agree with, but this part really struck me and broke my heart. In the end people who shout about how sports should be fair miss the point. Doesn't rugby like to hold itself up as a bastion of inclusion? Don't we like to talk about the lessons learned on the pitch and in the sheds? Outside of a small number of professionals aren't most rugby players playing for the love of the game, camaraderie, and to get some exercise? I think that these values are equally as important, if not more so, that supposed shouts about fairness that haven't been proven. In fact I would rather that we be more welcoming and open to all marginalized groups. Anything else just strikes me as bigotry pure and simple. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2020 13:45
|
|
|
Vaders Jester posted:The problem with the research is that it is entirely hypothetical, there is almost no practical, in the field analysis on the issue in rugby. As for taking emotion out of the equation, WR also included an openly transphobic pressure group, run by someone that thinks trans girls in the Girl Guides is a danger to women, on the panel to decide if trans people could be allowed to compete. It was barely a level playing field from the start. Yes exactly. Based on who they included it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that they used some science for window dressing. Also they don't account for how often these potential interactions even happen. What is the participation rate for trans women at any level of rugby, let along the highest level? Trans individuals represent 0.6% of the population, and given how aggressively they are marginalized by society I bet the participation rates for sports to be a lot lower. But even if we double to 1.2% participation this is one trans woman for every 6-7 starting XV. So in the women Six Nations that is one person. One. So the "20-30% injury chance increase" is actually far far lower. Let's say that we take that same study and apply it across racial groups. Maybe we find that injuries are 20-30% higher when playing polynesian teams. Should they be banned? What about if the results say that black South Africans "increase the injury risk" of opponents? What if it's the English? Or the Welsh? I know in American sports that there are teams who it is known have a higher injury rate in their opponents than the average. Sometimes a lot higher. Should we ban those teams and deal with it that way? Again this decision doesn't even weigh the "increased injury risk" against the damage done to trans women who just want to play rugby and find that community that we love to hold up. This decision strikes me as being similar to a lot of eugenics and scientific racism bullshit in the early 1900's. It's just that trans individuals are now the target. That's why I will continue to call this bigotry. Becasue that is plainly what it is. drunk leprechaun fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Oct 15, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
Mister Chief posted:I’m sure no one in this thread posted anything racist on the internet when they were a teenager. By the time I was 19 I knew that poo poo was stupid and to not post it. Did I post some stupid stuff that makes me cringe now? Yeah absolutely. But come one man. You're defending someone posting that all black people should be killed. Is this really the hill you want to die on?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2020 15:36
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:That's what I heard as a justification, as if rampant classism and snobbery was okay. I mean I don't have a problem with holding people to account for saying racist poo poo, especially in public. But man what a petty reason to dig through someone's Twitter history. Also lol at blaming Twitter for them saying stupid poo poo. Cuz really paper is responsible for The Turner Diaries. Come on dude.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:I phrased that poorly. I don't blame twitter for what he said, I just hate the website. In any case it's not that relevant. Fair. I agree Twitter is a mess. Still responsible for what you out up on that poo poo site though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
Man going from toast of the rugby world to unrepentant racist in two weeks. Life comes at you fast.
drunk leprechaun fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
I need to figure out. How to watch Chasing the Sun in the US. Haven't found any good source yet alas.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
I'm glad to see that a European rugby league is joining the find tradition in American sports of meaningless numbers in a league name. Without looking guess how many teams are in the Big12, Big10, and Atlantic10.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
bessantj posted:14 in all of them? Not quite! 14 members of the Big10 10 members of the Big12 14 members in the Atlantic10 The best thing was there were a few years around like 2012 or so where the Big10 had 12 members and the Big12 had 10 members. I don't know if they every seriously discussed just giving each other the trademarks, but goddamn if fans didn't hope they did.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 01:57
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Why don't they just update the numbers like Super Rugby did? This is 100% conjecture, but maybe there's another, much smaller, league in one of the Pro14 countries that holds the trademark for Pro16. I'd imagine that if that's the case they're figuring out branding and didn't want to do some stupid interim name. I could be 100% wrong though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2020 04:00
|
|
|
goatface posted:Better than pushing the decision back and calling it at the last minute. I expect they want to avoid putting it on, but having one or more teams have to sit our for the entire tournament. It sucks, but is probably the right call.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
HappyCamperGL posted:The pro14 now has 16 teams but instead of calling it the pro 16 it's being called the united rugby championship. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a copyright thing. Someone might be camping on the Pro 16 copyright and they're not willing to pay for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:I'm thinking back to when CTE in american football first became widespread news. I was hoping that the lower deceleration speeds in rugby would mitigate the risk of brain damage. Very wishful thinking on my part. Yeah with the research suggesting that sub-concussion head hits being damaging as well I think you're right. I don't k ow honestly how you deal with colission sports at all these days. Here's hoping better minds than me can figure it out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
Vaders Jester posted:The kiss of death for Scotland, right here. I know this is a total non sequitur but if you ever decide to get into American football this energy is 100% what Auburn fandom is like. Which is to say I am not suggesting anyone willingly adopt Auburn fandom, but it'll feel familiar to you at least.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
Vaders Jester posted:I've been a Ravens fan for the last 15 years or so, so its actually a refreshing change having a team that is generally good at the sport they play, unlike being a Scot with Italian family. I live in Baltimore actually. If you ever ce over for a game I'd be happy to show you around. And Auburn is college football. You can totally be a fan of them and the Ravens! But yeah for your own mental healthy you probably shouldn't lol.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
I think it would be silly not to spread groups games across the country. Put a group or two on the easy coast, one on the west coast, one in the Midwest, and one in the south and Texas or something. Totally manageable. And for knockout rounds nation wide i think would be fine. LA to NYC is like a 5 hour flight. Not that bad at all. As for MLR too many games are at night. And as noted the stadium situation is not great. I think they look like they're trying to set up smart slow growth, but the product right now is not the best in stadium honestly. My only concern is timing. Fall is just so packed sports wise in the US. And the natural home for rugby games of NFL anf college football stadiums are in heavy use. Nothing saying they could use those stadiums also. Some stadiums host 5-6 games a weekend, but I worry about the appearance of the field. Summer in the US is miserably hot in huge parts of the country and would make in stadium experiences bad. Even if it's a bit more open on the US sports calendar. Still excited and hope there's some games in DC or even more ideally Baltimore.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
camoseven posted:I have categorized these for those not familiar with the US stadium landscape: Unfortunately your classification is wrong. A fair number of MLS teams use NFL stadiums and don't have their own facilities. Based on that it should actually look like below. Atlanta, Georgia Austin, Texas - no NFL stadium, but DKR at University of Texas is a 100k person stadium Baltimore, Maryland Birmingham, Alabama - Legion Field is a 70k stadium, but is falling apart. They'd likely use the new UAB stadium which is a 47k stadium Boston, Massachusetts Charlotte, North Carolina Chicago, Illinois Dallas, Texas Denver, Colorado Glendale, Arizona Houston, Texas Kansas City, Missouri Los Angeles, California - Doesn't include the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum either which are both 90k+ historic stadiums Miami, Florida Minneapolis, Minnesota Nashville, Tennessee New Orleans, Louisiana New York/New Jersey Orlando, Florida - No NFL team, but does have Camping World stadium a 64k person stadium without a long term tenant Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania San Diego, California - SDSU is redeveloping the old NFL stadium to be their new stadium. Should seat 35k, so MLS sized San Francisco Bay Area, California Seattle, Washington Washington, D.C This also doesn't touch on options outside the NFL and MLS(other than the few cases I mentioned above). For example, the Big House at the University of Michigan is just as far from the Detroit airport as the NFL stadium in Detroit is. It would be attractive since at 107k+ it's the largest stadium in the western hemisphere and 3rd largest in the world. I know Detroit isn't on the list, but just wanted to point out that the pool for stadiums in the selected cities is deeper than just NFL and MLS facilities. Lastly the playing surface might be an issue. Many NFL stadiums use field turf, which is a synthetic playing surface. A fair number of college and MLS teams use it as well. If world rugby insists on a natural playing surface that might limit their options. Obviously there's a lot of time for that to get sorted, and some stadiums may go to natural surfaces between now and then, but artificial turf is very common in the US.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Tyma posted:I'm going to guess that most college football pitches absolutely dwarf Kingsholm? So no they don't. While the biggest stadiums in the US are for college football teams, there are so many colleges and stadiums that they really run the gamit. Take Baltimore where I live. Towson and Morgan State both have smaller like 10k or so stadiums. Johns Hopkins and Loyola both at non-football schools but have nice lacrosse fields that are a bit under 10k. And those are the ones off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm forgetting a stadium or two. But on the other hand if I drove a few hours north I'd get to Penn State which has one of the big 100k+ stadiums. The real issue with college stadiums is that the really big ones aren't usually in major cities. We tend to put our football schools away from the big cities. The stadiums are awesome, but outside of places like DKR in Austin, the Rose Bowl and Coliseum in LA and maybe Husky Stadium in Seattle you're usually at least an hour drive from a big city. Mister Chief posted:Where are we thinking the final would be? I thought it read something saying Jerry Jones wanted it in his spaceship in Dallas. But I think that was just fan conjecture. I don't think there's one logical place to put it. Our biggest domestic sports events always move around. If you cross reference the list of cities they're looking at hosting in with superbolw hosts in the last 2 decades or so I think you'd have a decent shortlist of where it will be. drunk leprechaun fucked around with this message at 13:53 on May 21, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
harperdc posted:Rose Bowl would be a good choice, but it would only be a mid-day game for timing reasons. Could also see MetLife/Meadowlands because New York. Yeah I think these are the logical choices, but who knows. I wouldn't be surprised if they put it in Atlanta, Dallas, or Chicago.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
Vaders Jester posted:I'd missed that. I assume the teams are still expecting the city to pay for everything on the vague notion that it will bring money into it at some nebulous point in the future? Welcome to your new 6 figure job as a stadium consultant. It's all a racket.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2022 05:05
|
|
|
I'm American so apologies for my ignorance. I get that firing/hiring a coach this close to the world cup is NZ basically admitting they won't be in top form for it. However they likely won't be anyway based on recent results. So would it be better to make the change now, and give the new regime more time? This world cup is likely a bit of a lost cause by NZ standards either way right.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2022 12:45
|
|
|
Foxtrot_13 posted:It depends on why the team is under-performing or playing bad. Thanks. Makes senae. Similar to the whole "trust the process" thing that pops up during rebuilds. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't another reason based around a 4 year cycle or rugby specific reasons I was missing. US domestic sports don't have multi-year cycles(other than maybe mid level college basketball but those cycles are team specific) so I'm not familiar with how that plays into coaching hires/fires, player development, roster management, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2022 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
So the All Blacks are just having a dead cat bounce and the wins are just delaying the inevitable at this point right? Like surely they've got to fire the coaching staff eventually.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2022 13:28
|
|