Rugbyidiot

With the recent suspensions (and in some cases yellow cards) given to DeVilliers, Jacques Fourie and Quade Copper, I have to ask; Is the IRB going crazy? In all three instances listed above, the player being tackled got up and seemed to be 100% ok. If tip tackles are so dangerous, why, are the players being tipped so damn healthly after the ordeal. You would think that if something were truly dangerous, more injuries would result.

The IRB seem to perceive all "tip-tackles" to be the same as pick-up-a-player-and-drive-his-head-into-the-ground-with-all-your-might. The result is players getting suspended for being good, aggressive defenders. It's true that being dropped on your head or shoulder can cause injury, but so can being stuck in a ruck, or at the bottom of a collapsed scrum-neither of which are illegal.

It's my view that the IRB don't really know what is good for the sport. In an effort to prevent injury, they are legislating an area of the game that does not often produce injury. In essence, they are playing politics. What do you think?

I'm a 24 year old rugby player. I do a lot of deadlifting and squatting in my training and I'm wondering if I should get a powerlifting belt for my heavy sets of squats and deadlifts. Right now I'm 187lbs, my deadlift max is 445 and my back squat is just under 325. My main concern is actually losing core and low back strength from using the belt. Is the belt worth a go? Or should I bear down and try to improve my core strength before getting the belt?

I'm an american and last week I got a red card for a dump tackle (I didn't drop the kid on his shoulders or head and i came down with him) that I've been doing for years and always thought was totally legal. I've seen an increase in extreme calls on tackles from USA D1 men club all the way to international test rugby.

The refs are willing to card anyone who hits even a little bit high or who shows any true physical dominance in the tackle. I believe that these decisions (by the refs and IRB) will result in a less physical game. The burden is now on the tackler to make a soft tackle that the ref will approve of. The ball carrier has even less to worry about now and can even dip into tackles with good faith that it will result in a high-tackle call.

Do agree with me or am I just crazy?

No coach.

No active website.

No goal posts.

Very little Money.

No numbers: 25 was the most players to show up to a game this year.

No accountability: players who do not practice start anyway (truly, no suitable replacements exist)

No recruitment program

Very talented players

This is my rugby team in a nutshell; what do you think?

What exactly is the definition of knowledge?

How can I know anything?

What is sufficient evidence for knowing anything?

What makes a good homily?

What makes a bad homily (specifically)?

How often would you say you hear a "bad" homily?

How do you react to a good vs. bad homily?

I ask this because the homily is my favorite part of the mass. It gives me a window into what the priest is thinking and I like to carefully scrutinize what he says. I don't often hear truly bad homilies, but I do hear a lot of homilies that are too analogical or too emotional and not objective or philosophical.

There are many traditions in this world some absolutely religious, some totally secular and some a mixture of both. My question is that if a tradition has its roots in a religion, is it necessary that the person who participates in that tradition actually follow that religion. For example, many americans celebrate Christmas, yet some do not even believe in Christ. Is it right to celebrate a religious holiday when you are not truly part of the religion. The same question can be applied to any religion such as judaism which has a plethora of traditions, yet many jews that I know do not really believe in the core doctrines of the Jewish faith, they simple adhere to the traditions.

Should religious traditions be followed by anyone, or by the people who actually hold the particular religion to be right and true?

Deontological ethics is essentially duty-driven. Are there limits to this type of system? Does it have any advantages? Please be specific.

I find that the word freedom is overly used in society (at least in the USA, where I live). No body seems to be able to define it, nor do they question their knowledge of it, they merely assume they know what it is. I would like to know what you think freedom is. Please be specific and try not to be too subjective. An effective answer to this question will be a definition that everyone can understand and scrutinize.

This is not some grade-school nonsense ex: "what does freedom mean to me?"

What freedom in the universal sense? Does it even exist. Sorry for the restrictions but I like objective answers.

Is value meaningless?

Is it relative to the person or to culture?

Are there things that everyone should value?

Should we value nothing?

Are there values that exist whether or not people recognize them?

Can you and I have opposite values and yet both be considered correct?

Please be descriptive

As simple as the concept of the "good" may seem, I find it very hard to define. I would like some of your insight into the good, its existence, meaning and anything else associated with it.

Do they have the right to do so?

Is it wrong because they are related?

Is it wrong because they are the same sex?

Is it wrong because there are 3 of them?

What if 2 brothers want to get married?

Where do the marriage lines get drawn? If the lines are not drawn at one man and one woman (who love each-other), what will actually constitute marriage? In the end will marriage become something to which we really want to aspire, or will it be a meaningless title?

What is the cause of sin? Can sin be inherited?

Please be as descriptive as possible. I will try to respond to as many answers as I can, I prefer a discussion to simple Q&A.