Confused about Rugby (1 Viewer)

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 00:07
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
20,859
I was watching some televised rugby matches on TV. Got confused about something. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

I watched several times where someone grabbed the ball and, through speed and evasive maneuvers, was able to carry the ball across a particular line. On the screen, there was the immediate acknowledgement of a "try" - but the guy got 5 points for it. What bothers me is that he didn't merely TRY to score... he succeeded. Why don't they call it a "success" ?? Because after all, I'm SURE he did what he wanted to do.
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 16:07
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
12,377
The team can now "try" a "conversion" by kicking the ball over the bar between the posts.
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 00:07
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
20,859
English (Queen's OR Trump's) is so strange.

You call it a try when the player succeeds. But Yoda said "There is no 'Try' - there is only do ... or not do."

But then, in the USA, we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway. (Thanks and full acknowledgement to George Carlin.)
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 00:07
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
20,859
Thanks for the article, Minty!

I'm a little (no, make that totally) blown away by these quotes which I read:

the rules allowed a game to be drawn if no one had scored a goal after three days’ play!

All undecided games were drawn after five days’ play.

If I played a game for three HOURS with no results, I would give up and consider another sport. Even Soccer gives up after a mere 90 minutes.

That article did clear up one thing for me. I know that USA Football was at least derived from Rugby with a few new wrinkles added. One phrase that had always made me curious about our scoring was why the "point after touchdown" (or P.A.T.) was sometimes called a "conversion." Of course, when reading that article I realized it was just another Rugby term that stayed with us until linguistic drift caused us to use other phrases. But we still talk about the "two-point conversion" for running in the ball for the "extra point" after a touchdown. And I saw that if the player actually crosses the goal line, he DOES in fact "touch down" the ball - unless he is tackled first and merely falls over the goal line.

A little glimpse of cultural diversion never hurts.
 

Gasman

Enthusiastic Amateur
Local time
Today, 06:07
Joined
Sep 21, 2011
Messages
9,062
Don't even look at cricket Doc. :D
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 00:07
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
20,859
Thanks, I have enough sticky wickets of my own.
 

Harrybrigham

Member
Local time
Today, 06:07
Joined
Feb 27, 2021
Messages
39
Why do you call your game football? It seems to me to be all with the hands except for one kick at goal.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Yesterday, 22:07
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
5,768
Why do you call your game football? It seems to me to be all with the hands except for one kick at goal.
Now I totally agree on that.

As to the rugby, maybe it's like Try_Catch 🤪
 

Eljefegeneo

Still trying to learn
Local time
Yesterday, 22:07
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
878
I once took two West Africans to an Arena Football Game (because I new somebody and got the tickets for free). They liked the opening fireworks - exciting to see indoor fireworks. But when the two teams tried to kill each other or at least that is what those two guys thought, they could hardly look at the action - way too brutal for them. Only used to football (soccer to us). So I suppose the answer to all of this is that different countries have different sports. And a good thing too. I wouldn't want too see let alone participate in buzkashi!
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 00:07
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
20,859
I once took two West Africans to an Arena Football Game (because I new somebody and got the tickets for free). They liked the opening fireworks - exciting to see indoor fireworks. But when the two teams tried to kill each other or at least that is what those two guys thought, they could hardly look at the action - way too brutal for them. Only used to football (soccer to us). So I suppose the answer to all of this is that different countries have different sports. And a good thing too. I wouldn't want too see let alone participate in buzkashi!

Ice hockey can be pretty brutal, too. You know the old saying about hockey: I went to a fight and it got so tough that a hockey game broke out.

More seriously, I happened to be in Washington DC on the evening of the first ever home game of the Washington Capitols hockey team. They played the Chicago Blackhawks at the time. Chicago had a very good defenseman named Keith Magnusson. In the third period he did what the defensemen are supposed to do - block a shot on-goal. He did so by blocking the puck with his chin. He hit the ice in one of those "collapse-in-a-heap" moves. The trainers took him off the ice by supporting him from either side and pushing. He was on skates so didn't have to step until they reached the exit. They were wearing the white jerseys but the front of his was red. The Caps won, by the way. The headlines the next day said that it took minor surgery and seven stitches to repair the jaw damage.

I've seen lots of "holy moley" videos, but that was the worst sports injury I ever saw in person. I can guarantee you, if they had concussion protocols in hockey back then, Keith would have been the poster boy for "getting his bell rung."
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom