41 replies · 899 views
Al Jarvis wrote:
hibster wrote: you can't disagree that football players go down easier than a crack whore in corby though
That isn't the point that I first reacted to though, is it? Cambo suggested that heterosexual men cared about rugberry, pooves(!) about football. Which patently isn't the case.
It's also a bit of a sweeping generalisation to say that players go down easily in football.
Try telling that to this bloke.
he's the new Coach of Sydney FC.
ChrissMari wrote:
J.A.K wrote:
hibster wrote:
Al Jarvis wrote:
Rugberry is a sport(?) for very posh blokes and gayers.
In England, at least.
based on what exactly? last season bristol signed some ex amateur players, one was a welder from coventry, one a builder from plymouth. neither of them are posh, if you want to call them gay i'll gladly hold your coat.
how often are you going to keep trotting out this stereotype? maybe going back sixty years or so when it was amatuer you had english teams made up of doctors & the like, but not any more
probably because working class cities like Liverpool for example just don't care about Rugby.
wigan does
wigan's not a city. its a poxy-pie-eating town!
Only one form of rugby worth watching.
Can't stand all-pile-on, the only thing its good for is the annual opportunity to laugh the Irish, Welsh and French and not give a stuff if England get beaten.
And I can't stand that knob who presents it on BBC, Rah!Rah!
James Thomas wrote: Only one form of rugby worth watching.
All about the Rhinos.
I like Rugby (league) and Football, dont see what all this is about. 
Rugbys more of a physical game though
J.A.K wrote:
ChrissMari wrote:
J.A.K wrote:
probably because working class cities like Liverpool for example just don't care about Rugby.
wigan does
wigan's not a city. its a poxy-pie-eating town!
I'm just saying it's working class and they enjoy their rugby
or is it only the sophisticated city working class types (what?) that count? :P
ChrissMari wrote:
J.A.K wrote:
ChrissMari wrote:
J.A.K wrote:
probably because working class cities like Liverpool for example just don't care about Rugby.
wigan does
wigan's not a city. its a poxy-pie-eating town!
I'm just saying it's working class and they enjoy their rugby
or is it only the sophisticated city working class types (what?) that count? :P
err i'd leave the posting til you know what you're tlaking about. wigan is rugby league, this was about rugby union.
hibster wrote: ....half the players don't understand the laws of rugby!
Obviously drinking piss and stuffing coins up their foreskin has had a negative impact on their capacity to understand a game.
Al Jarvis wrote:
hibster wrote: you can't disagree that football players go down easier than a crack whore in corby though
That isn't the point that I first reacted to though, is it? Cambo suggested that heterosexual men cared about rugberry, pooves(!) about football. Which patently isn't the case.
It's also a bit of a sweeping generalisation to say that players go down easily in football.
Try telling that to this bloke.
see i knew you'd bring him up as there are so few cases of footballers having any mettle & playing on through serious injury. you've now named both ones i could think of btw. & butchers just got a little claret on him nothing much.
go to any game of rugby & see injuries & people carrying on, go to any football match & you'll see someone rolling around on the floor in agony after a tiny little knock. sweeping generalisation or damning critique on the state that game you follow is these days?
hibster wrote:
ChrissMari wrote:
J.A.K wrote:
ChrissMari wrote:
J.A.K wrote:
probably because working class cities like Liverpool for example just don't care about Rugby.
wigan does
wigan's not a city. its a poxy-pie-eating town!
I'm just saying it's working class and they enjoy their rugby
or is it only the sophisticated city working class types (what?) that count? :P
err i'd leave the posting til you know what you're tlaking about. wigan is rugby league, this was about rugby union.
I know that... and I know the difference between the two but I guess I don't get how that affects this conversation?
Is one seen as more faggy than the other?
I'll just step away then because I think the fact that you have to say that one game is more pouncey than the other game means that both are probably pretty gay and not worth the time to wind JAK up about.
My British History professor once said that soccer (i.e. football) is a game of gentlemen played by ruffians, and rugby is a game of ruffians played by gentlemen. I don't know what that means, except that he was probably a rugby fan... Anyway, the rugby rules are no doubt more complex than the rules of football. Same with cricket, baseball, Amercian football, etc. Doesn't make them better sports, just more comlicated. That's probably one reason football is so popular- it's simple!
