blm

The front rows, scrum halfs and officials seems to have a lot of difficulty adjusting. Is this just teething issues, or is there some more fundamental problem?

I've come to believe that the modern sport produces players who are way to specialized -- an over-developed group of one-trick ponies. It makes me want to return to the old days, when players played on both sides of the ball, when you only dressed 33 (or fewer) men for a match, kickers actually had to make tackles and run with the ball, and once you came off the field, you stayed off for the rest of the half. It would encourage young players to be fitter, curb steroid use as the extra size would be a liability, produce better all-round athletes, and force coaches to make some real (and hard) decisions about their substitutions. Frankly, I think it would be a much better game. Anyone feel the same?

And while they are at it, move the hash marks back towards the sidelines -- who says the game can only be played in the middle of the field?

Critics of the American game make the point that there is actually very little action in the "sixty" minutes "game" time/three hours "real" time the game is played over. The Wall street journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487042... ) references a study which indicates that in a typical NFL match the ball is only "live" for about 11 minutes.

By way of contrast (and this is not meant as a criticism of the American game), in a typical Rugby or Soccer match (which take less than two hours to play) the ball is live at least four to five times longer. And this is important because the constant start-stop is one of the main obstacles the NFL has stumbled over in is several recent attempts to establish a European league.

This raises two questions. (1) Is eleven minutes enough? and (2) what (if anything) should the NFL do about it? Thoughts

Have the UK and Republic of Ireland RFUs sorted out how the 7s Olympic squads are to be selected? Or have they been cut out of the process by the national Olympic committees? In short, how are the squads to be selected?

I was watching the Saints-Wasps game, when the commentator noted that Samu Manoa, the Saint's outstanding American second rower only had one international cap. Later it came out that there was a reason for this -- one of the conditions on his initial contract with Northamption was a requirement that he make himself unavailable to the American squad for international matches. Can you imagine the fuss if the Saints had required similar terms from an English international? And it isn't just Manoa -- we here stories here in Canada of similar conditions being imposed on our own international who play in Europe.

Now -- presumably -- one of the IRBs priorities is to grow the game in Canada and the United States. So should the IRB be cracking down on this type of arrangement? Can it crack down or are its' hands tied by the more powerful national unions? And what are we here in North America to make of this situation?

You might want to check out this NY Times article on the issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/rugby/24i...

absolutly bizarre "delay" of game call in the semi-final women's soccer match between the US and Canada, other than that she was trying to fix the outcome. For all the spinning by NBC, FIFA or the American fans, I have yet to see (or hear) anyone articulate one.

In modern rugby -- and Canadian gridiron football as well -- players in an onside position are allowed to chase down and field a punt kicked by their own team. However, I understand that in the American verson of the sport this practise is forbidden. Does anyone know when and why this rule was adopted?

So London Welsh are going to the Premiership after all, while Newcastle are relegated to the Championship. And Wasps feeling even more relief. Good for English Rugby or bad? Comments?

Bearing in mind that the Championship is a fully professional league with some good clubs. Can Newcastle come up again?

Looking at the RFU Championship semi-finals, London Welsh and Bedford both have significant leads, but neither has a grounds which will meet the requirements for promotion. So unless Bristol pulls off a miracle, Newcastle get to stay in the Premiership anyway?

This came up in a conversation recently, where I realized I didn't know the answer.

Every forward knows that in a (defensive) rucking situation, you are not allowed to reach over and grab, bind onto, or generally mess with the opposing scrum half (or another player filling in that role) as he tries to pull the ball out of the scrum. This applies even if you are in a legal rucking situation -- entering through the gate and all that. But could someone refer me to the particular law (probably part of Law 16?) which forbids that play.

OK -- perhaps as a Canadian I am missing something. But a few questions. Did Sonny Bill Williams not sigh with the NZRU for a fraction of what he was being offered to stay in France? And why does this seem to count for nothing in New Zealand?

By the way, I don't particularly hold his walking away from the Bulldog contract against him. Given the recent NRL scandals, I don't think anyone in that competition takes their contractual obligations seriously.

OK -- I understand the logic about the uncontested scrums and the six down system. I don't like necessarily like that logic, but I understand it. But why did Rugby League feel it necessary to eliminate the contested lineout after a ball goes into touch.

OK - I know I'm stirring the pot here, but last year we bagged France A in the Churchill Cup, and this year we did the same to Italy. I know we aren't shark status yet, but surely we rate better than minnow. Barracuda, maybe?

For example, suppose Leicester Tigers (through some act of God) were to find themselves relegated to the RFU Championship at the end of next season. Would Toby Flood find himself playing at that level, or would there be a mechanism to keep him in the Premiership?

All of the European Leagues have gone to 23 man lineups (requiring 2 reserve props) and it has certainly put an end to the uncontested scrum issue. Is anyone aware of any noises the IRB has made about going to this format for international matches after the upcoming World Cup.

Meaning players who have been capped for both League and Union, but for different countries?

I'm doing some comparative analysis on the relative dangers of playing rugby union and American football. In several places, I have seen the number "600 to 700 deaths" since the 1930s quoted -- on a Penn and Teller documentary for one. Is anyone aware of the source of these figures, or if they are wrong, where more accurate ones might be obtained.

I realize that the data may no exist, given the number of different countries the sport is played in. But by way of contrast, between 600 and 700 people have been killed playing American Football in the United States over the last 80 years. That works out to between 5 and 10 per year. Any hard data for rugby out there -- at least amongst the Six or Tri-Nations?

Nowadays elite players and teams play and train together full time. In those circumstances, is it reasonable for a team like the Lions -- a collection of gifted individuals but with only have six or eight weeks to train together -- to be competitive with established first-rate national squads. Or even with the "packed" semi-national Super-15 club squads like Crusaders and Bulls.

And would a hypothetical SANZAR squad do any better against stronger (again "packed") semi-national NH squads like Cardiff, Leinster or Munster. Why or why not?