Andrew

It occurred to me the other day, that the fielding team has more to gain by the 2nd baseman dropping the ball and getting the forced run double play than by just catching the batter out and leaving the runner on 1st.

Is this a thing? Do teams ever do this?

Who is your player of the competition so far?

I know this will be widely varied, and based mostly on personal bias, but would be interesting to hear people's opinions.

I'm going to go with Nathan Sharpe

Hard worker, great leader and, as always, has been putting his body on the line for his team all season.

define idiot - Jalan blocking everyone then posting a question to them they can't respond to

Sharpey achieved the 150 match milestone last Friday, and, although the game was one he'd rather forget, he is the first and only player to play so many games in this comp.

I'd like to take some time to get your thoughts and feelings on this (imo) highly underrated player.

For mine, in general play Sharpe has been the epitome of what a great second rower should be, he always gives 100%, always works hard in the tight and never looks for accolades or glory.

In the lineout, well, the great Victor Matfield described him as his greatest rival in that area, I don't think anymore need be said on it.

I always thought Sharpe deserved more recognition than he received at international level, it always seems the Wallabies' opponents have more respect for him than they themselves do. I thought, personally, that he should have been made Wallaby captain for the RWC in 2011 (in fact, I thought he should have been captain since Gregan retired). No offence to Horwill, Mortlock or Elsom, but Sharpe is, in my opinion, a rare leader in the game of rugby, up there with the likes of McCaw and Smit.

Anyway, what do you think?

Before certain people ruined the tone and feel of the place by picking fights, posting abuse and blocking all and sundry afterwards? We all know who I am talking about.

Apparently YA aren't interested in the integrity of their section, but we can do something about it.

Every time you come across the distasteful, disrespectful and downright insulting rubbish posted, I urge everyone to file a report to YA - it seriously takes like 3 seconds and 2 clicks.

Seriously, they weren't even involved, but if you have a look at some of the Aussie websites (and here) there are a heap of them bitching and moaning that:

McCaw cheats (real original)

Joubert was biased (funny how no one complained about Lawrence when he gave them game against SA!)

NZ choked (anothe good one - we won idiots)

NZ didn't give respect to France for the great game they played (this one I don't get, either we choked, or France played a great game - you can't have both)

And my favourite, that peculiar Aussie thing where they pretend they don't care and simultaneous make a sweeping, nasty generalisation about all of NZ - something like

"Well done, we all know Rugby is the only thing you have because you live in a cruddy little country and you all have chips on your shoulders and shag sheep"

My take on it is that NZ played a huge game against Aussie in the semis, where France had a reasonably easy one against 14 men (easy as far as RWC semis go anyway), we were tired and beat up, but hung on for the win when it mattered against a passionate and committed French side who showed all the class we knew they had but hadn;t shown yet.

So - why are the Aussies so upset? They weren't even there! .

Why can't some of them show the class and dignity of the French?

Hi folks, a little advice needed. I play American football here in Australia and I've played center for the last 4 years and done pretty well, but this year coach has moved another guy into the middle and I look like I will be moving out to guard or tackle. Guard I can handle, I started there and it's not that different to center anyway, I can pull, cut and everything else I need. But I am a little concerned that I'll be playing catchup at tackle (it seems so wide open!).

Specifically, I've been working on what my coach calls a 'drag step', which I just don't seem able to get. It's a little hard to describe, but effectively off the snap you move backwards from the line of scrimmage (as if keeping tabs on a wide pass rusher) head and chest up, hips low, and you keep your inside foot on the deck, dragging it as you move backwards with most of your weight on your outside leg. The idea being that you can keep an eye on the outside guy, but still be ready to front up to a bloke who tries to come through your inside gap.

It makes perfect sense when I see the other linemen do it, but I can't for the life of me get it to work (too old to learn new tricks maybe) so any tips from someone who knows would be great.

Thanks guys

The rugby section seems to have a lot of the same guys posting, I thought it would be good to get a feel from where each of us comes from and what our involvement with this great game has been.

I'll go first!

I was born in Canterbury, New Zealand, with a rugby ball in hand (well not quite, but the nurse gave me one as soon as I was out). I have grown up with the game and always been around it.

I played age group rugby in my home town until my family left to live in Australia.

I played for a short time in Queensland, then moved to Perth, where I have been playing ever since.

6 years ago I became a referee and 4 years ago I coached juniors for 2 years.

I started out as a scrumhalf, but got kept growing and was moved (in order) to fullback, wing, centre, back row, second row, front row. The only position I haven't started at is flyhalf, though I have moved there a couple of times during games.

I live and breathe rugby, I think it is just about the most perfect game there is, it has it all. Aggression, passion, power, speed, finesse, grit, determination.

Hi folks. I play American Football in Australia, and we play according the NCAA rule book. Can anyone tell me what the rules are regarding coaches entering the field of play (ie to talk to an official or something)? Cheers

Hi guys, I need help. I play center for an Australian side, and I need a new pair of cleats. I am currently wearing UnderArmor ATVs - http://www.weplaysports.com/Under/Armour/Turf/ - which are really comfortable but both split in the same place at the same time on both shoes (right at the end of the laces on the outside, they are not even a whole season old! Not happy....

Can anyone suggest a good pair of mid to high top cleats for an offensive lineman? I prefer a rubber or molded sole due to how hard the grounds are here (longer spikes don't really penetrate and you kind of end up skating across the field).

Thanks heaps to anyone who can help.

(btw I understand our level of American Football is not the same standard as that in the U.S, so no need to point this out, cheers)

As an atheist, I hear all kinds of things from Christians like "they don't believe in God because they want to make money" (WTF?) or "atheists can't deal with god" (again, WTF?)

So what's your honest opinion?

Do you think we atheist *choose* not to believe just so you have someone to hate on?

Do you think we are kidding ourselves?

What?

Seeing as another contributor has seen fit to block me after I disagreed with his rant, I will ask the question again.

I believe alcohol (and alcohol sales) are an important part of modern professional sports events. Obviously there are some idiots who cannot hold their drink and feel the need to act the fool after they've had a skinful. In my opinion, it is these people who should be banned, or at least removed from games when they cause trouble. Banning all alcohol punishes everyone for the acts of a small minority, it's not only a kneejerk response, it is unnecessary, unfair, and will not solve the problem.

If people want to get drunk, they will just do so before the game or smuggle their own alcohol in. So, those doing the right thing are deprived the right for a few beers whilst they enjoy the game, but the idiots carry on as normal.

This week the English coach was quoted as saying

"I think there were three games in the Tri-Nations that produced an average of 77 points. That for me is not Test rugby."

Does he think that by scoring less points, England is a better side?

Has anyone explained to him the objective of the game is to score more than the opposition.

It won't be pretty this weekend at Twickenham, the All Blacks will make these guys look very, very ordinary.

Is there any group in the history of the world that advocated the burning of books (any books) and is now looked back on fondly?

I think this guy needs to have a good, hard think about what he is trying to achieve here.

It has been stated here time and again that Hitler was an atheist

Although it proves nothing, even if he was, why are Christians so adamant in denying this. Look at the evidence:

Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf, "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."

Adolf Hitler to General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

Hitler Biographer John Toland: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite the detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jews was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god. ..."

Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us).

His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests.

What more evidence could there POSSIBLY be that Hitler was a devout Christian?

Can this be put to bed now?

Between religious fundamentalism or fanaticism and a low IQ?

Read through the majority of questions here regarding a god or gods, particularly those that are obviously controversial or intended to start an argument.

They are nearly all poorly grammaticised, poorly spelt and / or poorly constructed, some of them are little (or no) more than gibberish.

It would seem, on the face of it, that fanatical belief in a deity is connected in some way to either a low intelligence or at least access to a decent education.

I suggest it is the second, and research backs me up; that religion is most vehemently defended and fanatically followed by those with little or no education.

If you read the comments by the more moderate religious folk, they tend to be more articulate, better constructed and, at least by religious standards, they attempt reason (even if it is flawed).

This is not intended as a troll, though I expect to get lots of 'burn in hell' comments from the great unwashed, I suspect they will prove my point for me.