Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Soccer Thread


The Gipper

Recommended Posts

I was making a joke. The point was, no game is perfect. There are plenty of things wrong with the NFL that could be improved if they wanted to expand the game. I just happen to like the current version. And I get that the idea of having a game finish 0-0 is just heresy to some people who crave the big play, highlight reel style of the NFL.

What suggestions would you make to changing the NFL....because, FYI, they do make changes all the time.

 

As for the 0-0 thing...it is not that so much....but the fact that they go through all those 90 minutes or whatever plus more time and accomplish nothing....then they decide to use a complete gimmick that is really not related to how the game is actually played to decide the game. (the shootout). Again, to me, this form of deciding the game should be an abomination to a purist. I simply say that opening up the game so that the shootouts occur naturally within the course of the action of the game would be far superior to the bogus system they use now.

Riddle me this: Why don't they employ the offside rule during the shootout. As I understand it, the reason for the offside rule is to always have one defender plus the goalie between the ball and the goal. But they waive that requirement during a shootout?

Why don't they have another defender in play in the shootouts?

(or, like I said: better yet, just have the shootouts occur naturally in the course of the game).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What suggestions would you make to changing the NFL....because, FYI, they do make changes all the time.

 

As for the 0-0 thing...it is not that so much....but the fact that they go through all those 90 minutes or whatever plus more time and accomplish nothing....then they decide to use a complete gimmick that is really not related to how the game is actually played to decide the game. (the shootout). Again, to me, this form of deciding the game should be an abomination to a purist. I simply say that opening up the game so that the shootouts occur naturally within the course of the action of the game would be far superior to the bogus system they use now.

Riddle me this: Why don't they employ the offside rule during the shootout. As I understand it, the reason for the offside rule is to always have one defender plus the goalie between the ball and the goal. But they waive that requirement during a shootout?

Why don't they have another defender in play in the shootouts?

(or, like I said: better yet, just have the shootouts occur naturally in the course of the game).

OK, well, stereotypical reasons that people don't get too interested in the NFL over here include:

 

- after 5 seconds of action the clock stops and we have 40 seconds (play clock) of analysis. then after everything of interest - touchdown, field goal, PAT, punt, kick off, fumbles, interceptions, turnovers of any kind you have adverts. This really pisses a lot of people off. This is also a complaint about cricket, and probably baseball?

 

- it's "girls' rugby" - all the padding etc. gives the impression that it's a woman's game.

 

- it's complicated. If you've not grown up with it, it can seem ridiculously complex, and not necessarily in a good way. For example, you have Offside, Neutral Zone Infraction, Unabated to the QB, False Start, which all basically mean the same thing, that someone moved before the snap when they shouldn't have.

 

- it's too stylised - can't find the right word at the moment, but it gives the impression with the cheerleaders, the pyrotechnics and things that the sport comes second to the entertainment - moving in the direction of wrestling?

 

- maybe back to the first point, but it's very start/stop. You have massive rosters, and completely different players depending on whether you're attacking or defending. Not many sports I can think of actually have that.

 

Anyway, all that being said, I do love the sport as it is and wouldn't want to change it. BUT, people dismiss the sport because of things like this.

 

 

As for the penalty shootout, it's not the best way to determine a game, I agree. There have been suggestions on how to improve it but none that have gained any traction. In terms of the offside, the rule is that you need to have two players between you and the goal when the ball is passed, and then you can do whatever you want. You don't need two players when you shoot.

 

Having the shootout in the middle of the game is a ridiculous idea, I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense whatsoever. It's not like every game ends in a shootout by any stretch. In league games there's absolutely no problem with a game ending in a draw - why would there be? Two teams have played equally well, what's the need to have a winner? The league is just a round robin, each team plays each other team home and away. 20 teams in a league, 38 games, it's very rare that two teams are tied on points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, favouring teams going for a win), and even then goal difference is the decider, and then goals scored. It hasn't happened in any league I've been following in my life time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is more interesting and exciting in your opinion. As Chris noted the average America craves the big play, the high scoring game, highlight reel material, etc.

 

A. It doesn't exactly work like that, especially in a full 11 v 11 game. You agent going to leave a guy by himself 1 on 1 with the goalie.

 

B. Stuff like that would happen. Stuff like that does happen now (maybe not as blatant). Using that as a failsafe against a broken game mechanic is dumb though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, well, stereotypical reasons that people don't get too interested in the NFL over here include:

 

- after 5 seconds of action the clock stops and we have 40 seconds (play clock) of analysis. then after everything of interest - touchdown, field goal, PAT, punt, kick off, fumbles, interceptions, turnovers of any kind you have adverts. This really pisses a lot of people off. This is also a complaint about cricket, and probably baseball?

 

Well, the sport does involves individual "plays" that begin with a snap and end with a tackle. Nothing can be done about that. Sometimes teams run a "hurry up" offense that moves the game along faster. And it isn't the fact that the game has those stoppages after TDs/TOs etc....it is the fact that they use those stoppages to elongate them and insert commercials. And that pisses a lot of us off as well. But all that money generated by those commercials is what puts the millions of dollars in everybody's pockets. (watch a high school game to get away from all that)

 

- it's "girls' rugby" - all the padding etc. gives the impression that it's a woman's game.

Anyone that has played the game once would know how stupid an impression that is. Football is much rougher than rugby....as in rugby only the ball carrier is allowed to be touched, and he can only be tackled by certain limited methods. In football every player can knock the crap out of every other player....with the ball or not. (with certain exceptions).

 

- it's complicated. If you've not grown up with it, it can seem ridiculously complex, and not necessarily in a good way. For example, you have Offside, Neutral Zone Infraction, Unabated to the QB, False Start, which all basically mean the same thing, that someone moved before the snap when they shouldn't have.

Well, it is complicated, perhaps far more than you...or even I am aware. (The offside/neutral zone/unabated really are the same infraction...it is just that those calls are simply the refs giving the reason why a team is offside. False start is NOT the same)

 

- it's too stylised - can't find the right word at the moment, but it gives the impression with the cheerleaders, the pyrotechnics and things that the sport comes second to the entertainment - moving in the direction of wrestling?

Some of that is "stylized" to appeal to casual fans....to keep them busy during all those TV time outs. But, particularly in the college game, a lot of that pageantry is very traditional and very appealing.

 

- maybe back to the first point, but it's very start/stop. You have massive rosters, and completely different players depending on whether you're attacking or defending. Not many sports I can think of actually have that.

That goes back to the complicated nature of the sport. But, FYI, the rules do not require all that specialization. It is just the way the game developed. At one time, early on the same players played offense and defense.

If a team wanted to it could play the same 11 player on offense and defense.

The thing that football does that the other sports don't do is to have that "stoppage" when there is a shift from offense to defense. Other sports, (basketball/hockey) have more automatic transitioning. (though baseball does have the same stoppage)

 

Anyway, all that being said, I do love the sport as it is and wouldn't want to change it. BUT, people dismiss the sport because of things like this.

To paraphrase Yogi Berra: if people want to be stupid, you can't stop them.

 

As for the penalty shootout, it's not the best way to determine a game, I agree. There have been suggestions on how to improve it but none that have gained any traction. In terms of the offside, the rule is that you need to have two players between you and the goal when the ball is passed, and then you can do whatever you want. You don't need two players when you shoot.

 

Having the shootout in the middle of the game is a ridiculous idea, I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense whatsoever.

I am not saying to stop things and have that shootout....I am saying if you eliminate that 2 defender rule you describe above what you will get within the natural action of the game is essentially a shootout on occasion: goalie and scorer, mano a mano.

 

 

It's not like every game ends in a shootout by any stretch. In league games there's absolutely no problem with a game ending in a draw - why would there be? Two teams have played equally well, what's the need to have a winner? The league is just a round robin, each team plays each other team home and away. 20 teams in a league, 38 games, it's very rare that two teams are tied on points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, favouring teams going for a win), and even then goal difference is the decider, and then goals scored. It hasn't happened in any league I've been following in my life time.

I am not opposed to a draw.....but the MLS Championship game this year was decided by a shootout. These guys played soccer for like 2 hours, but then they stopped and had this silly shootout decide a winner.

It is like saying that the Super Bowl, if tied after a certain period of time, will be decided by having a Field Goal kicking contest.

Or by having the World Series decided by a home run hitting contest.

Hell, to me, just keep playing the damn game until players on one team or another drop and someone scores.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing for even longer than two hours will just continue to degrade the level of play as players become more fatigued. They don't have multiple back ups at every position.

Fine, that is the point. When they become fatigued and the golden goal is scored then they can all go home.

This happens in baseball when they play like 20 some innings.

It happens in playoff hockey when at times they had games go 9 hours.

The longest NFL game went like 82 minutes.

Just last year the Ravens and Broncos played a double OT game.

 

They can handle it, they are big boys. If they are that worn out and want to give up, just let the other team score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Playing both Football and Rugby I would argue that Rugby is in fact much more grueling than Football. There is no such thing as a timeout, unless of an injury. My first Rugby game I ended up with 35 stitches above my right eye and bruised over 40 percent of my body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing both Football and Rugby I would argue that Rugby is in fact much more grueling than Football. There is no such thing as a timeout, unless of an injury. My first Rugby game I ended up with 35 stitches above my right eye and bruised over 40 percent of my body.

That is because you didn't wear a helmet and pads. Why should football be denigrated because they are smart.

 

Besides...play football without pads and you would have a hundred stitches and bruises over 80% of your body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- after 5 seconds of action the clock stops and we have 40 seconds (play clock) of analysis. then after everything of interest - touchdown, field goal, PAT, punt, kick off, fumbles, interceptions, turnovers of any kind you have adverts. This really pisses a lot of people off. This is also a complaint about cricket, and probably baseball?

Well, the sport does involves individual "plays" that begin with a snap and end with a tackle. Nothing can be done about that. Sometimes teams run a "hurry up" offense that moves the game along faster. And it isn't the fact that the game has those stoppages after TDs/TOs etc....it is the fact that they use those stoppages to elongate them and insert commercials. And that pisses a lot of us off as well. But all that money generated by those commercials is what puts the millions of dollars in everybody's pockets. (watch a high school game to get away from all that)

Everybody's pockets? Or the pockets of those in charge? I can imagine it's difficult to resist when someone says "give me 15 seconds of airtime after every TD and I'll give you $10m per game. But then perhaps it shouldn't be up to the people who'd benefit to make that decision - there's a conflict of interest, surely.

- it's "girls' rugby" - all the padding etc. gives the impression that it's a woman's game.

Anyone that has played the game once would know how stupid an impression that is. Football is much rougher than rugby....as in rugby only the ball carrier is allowed to be touched, and he can only be tackled by certain limited methods. In football every player can knock the crap out of every other player....with the ball or not. (with certain exceptions).

But that's the point, people think that 'real men' - where your 'realness' is measure by how willing you are to have pain inflicted on you as if we are living in some masochistocracy - wouldn't wear the pads in the first place.

- it's complicated. If you've not grown up with it, it can seem ridiculously complex, and not necessarily in a good way. For example, you have Offside, Neutral Zone Infraction, Unabated to the QB, False Start, which all basically mean the same thing, that someone moved before the snap when they shouldn't have.

Well, it is complicated, perhaps far more than you...or even I am aware. (The offside/neutral zone/unabated really are the same infraction...it is just that those calls are simply the refs giving the reason why a team is offside. False start is NOT the same)

I don't mean just in that particular case. It has very specific rules, that have evolved over the years to make the game more balanced - for example after the WR catches the ball there's a period where he's defenceless and can't be hit, until he makes a 'football move'; if you hit him after 0.6 seconds, say, it's a penalty, after 0.8 it's fine.

- it's too stylised - can't find the right word at the moment, but it gives the impression with the cheerleaders, the pyrotechnics and things that the sport comes second to the entertainment - moving in the direction of wrestling?

Some of that is "stylized" to appeal to casual fans....to keep them busy during all those TV time outs. But, particularly in the college game, a lot of that pageantry is very traditional and very appealing.

Don't get me wrong, I love the marching band stuff, but it all feels very 'American' a lot of the time. I grant you, that's not a great definition. I guess it's like the difference between a goal in soccer being celebrated with 'good job old sport' and a TD being celebrated with 'fuck yeah! you're the mother fucking best! God damn I want your babies!' (exaggerated for effect, in case that didn't come across)

- maybe back to the first point, but it's very start/stop. You have massive rosters, and completely different players depending on whether you're attacking or defending. Not many sports I can think of actually have that.

That goes back to the complicated nature of the sport. But, FYI, the rules do not require all that specialization. It is just the way the game developed. At one time, early on the same players played offense and defense.

If a team wanted to it could play the same 11 player on offense and defense.

The thing that football does that the other sports don't do is to have that "stoppage" when there is a shift from offense to defense. Other sports, (basketball/hockey) have more automatic transitioning. (though baseball does have the same stoppage)

Again, it's an evolution, hyper-specialism. Perhaps if the roster wasn't so large, compared to other sports, the specialism wouldn't be so great. If you only had a game day roster of 20 guys, you'd have to be much more versatile.

Anyway, all that being said, I do love the sport as it is and wouldn't want to change it. BUT, people dismiss the sport because of things like this.

To paraphrase Yogi Berra: if people want to be stupid, you can't stop them.

As for the penalty shootout, it's not the best way to determine a game, I agree. There have been suggestions on how to improve it but none that have gained any traction. In terms of the offside, the rule is that you need to have two players between you and the goal when the ball is passed, and then you can do whatever you want. You don't need two players when you shoot.

Having the shootout in the middle of the game is a ridiculous idea, I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense whatsoever.

I am not saying to stop things and have that shootout....I am saying if you eliminate that 2 defender rule you describe above what you will get within the natural action of the game is essentially a shootout on occasion: goalie and scorer, mano a mano.

But then it's far too easy to just hit a long pass to the guy on his own and he scores. The game used to be played like this, was changed and is now better for it, much more tactical. Imagine saying that the eligible receivers could line up where they liked on either side of the LoS?

It's not like every game ends in a shootout by any stretch. In league games there's absolutely no problem with a game ending in a draw - why would there be? Two teams have played equally well, what's the need to have a winner? The league is just a round robin, each team plays each other team home and away. 20 teams in a league, 38 games, it's very rare that two teams are tied on points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, favouring teams going for a win), and even then goal difference is the decider, and then goals scored. It hasn't happened in any league I've been following in my life time.

I am not opposed to a draw.....but the MLS Championship game this year was decided by a shootout. These guys played soccer for like 2 hours, but then they stopped and had this silly shootout decide a winner.

It is like saying that the Super Bowl, if tied after a certain period of time, will be decided by having a Field Goal kicking contest.

Or by having the World Series decided by a home run hitting contest.

Hell, to me, just keep playing the damn game until players on one team or another drop and someone scores.

Yeah, that sucks. Nobody thinks that it's the 'ideal' solution by any means. Golden goal was trialled, for several years - after which there'd be penalties if there's no goal in 30 minutes - then voted against. Maybe it's better if you get the ball on the centre spot with a defender between you and the goal, and you go for it. Probably not, though, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

- after 5 seconds of action the clock stops and we have 40 seconds (play clock) of analysis. then after everything of interest - touchdown, field goal, PAT, punt, kick off, fumbles, interceptions, turnovers of any kind you have adverts. This really pisses a lot of people off. This is also a complaint about cricket, and probably baseball?

Well, the sport does involves individual "plays" that begin with a snap and end with a tackle. Nothing can be done about that. Sometimes teams run a "hurry up" offense that moves the game along faster. And it isn't the fact that the game has those stoppages after TDs/TOs etc....it is the fact that they use those stoppages to elongate them and insert commercials. And that pisses a lot of us off as well. But all that money generated by those commercials is what puts the millions of dollars in everybody's pockets. (watch a high school game to get away from all that)

Everybody's pockets? Or the pockets of those in charge? I can imagine it's difficult to resist when someone says "give me 15 seconds of airtime after every TD and I'll give you $10m per game. But then perhaps it shouldn't be up to the people who'd benefit to make that decision - there's a conflict of interest, surely.

Well, not really. The NFL is still for the most part a private business and the people that run it are out to make money. And yes, you are right, it is not everybody...just the owners/players/support staff....not the fans.

- it's "girls' rugby" - all the padding etc. gives the impression that it's a woman's game.

Anyone that has played the game once would know how stupid an impression that is. Football is much rougher than rugby....as in rugby only the ball carrier is allowed to be touched, and he can only be tackled by certain limited methods. In football every player can knock the crap out of every other player....with the ball or not. (with certain exceptions).

But that's the point, people think that 'real men' - where your 'realness' is measure by how willing you are to have pain inflicted on you as if we are living in some masochistocracy - wouldn't wear the pads in the first place.

Being a real man also involves not being stupid. It would be stupid for football players not to wear pads. Trust me...and ask anyone here that has played. Football is not a contact sport, it is a collision sport, and the injury situation would be astronomical if they did not wear pads.

- it's complicated. If you've not grown up with it, it can seem ridiculously complex, and not necessarily in a good way. For example, you have Offside, Neutral Zone Infraction, Unabated to the QB, False Start, which all basically mean the same thing, that someone moved before the snap when they shouldn't have.

Well, it is complicated, perhaps far more than you...or even I am aware. (The offside/neutral zone/unabated really are the same infraction...it is just that those calls are simply the refs giving the reason why a team is offside. False start is NOT the same)

I don't mean just in that particular case. It has very specific rules, that have evolved over the years to make the game more balanced - for example after the WR catches the ball there's a period where he's defenceless and can't be hit, until he makes a 'football move'; if you hit him after 0.6 seconds, say, it's a penalty, after 0.8 it's fine.

- it's too stylised - can't find the right word at the moment, but it gives the impression with the cheerleaders, the pyrotechnics and things that the sport comes second to the entertainment - moving in the direction of wrestling?

Some of that is "stylized" to appeal to casual fans....to keep them busy during all those TV time outs. But, particularly in the college game, a lot of that pageantry is very traditional and very appealing.

Don't get me wrong, I love the marching band stuff, but it all feels very 'American' a lot of the time. I grant you, that's not a great definition. I guess it's like the difference between a goal in soccer being celebrated with 'good job old sport' and a TD being celebrated with 'fuck yeah! you're the mother fucking best! God damn I want your babies!' (exaggerated for effect, in case that didn't come across)

Not sure I follow you....soccer players that make goals also do a lot of silly celebrating. But what I am talking about is far more than celebration acts....it is the whole aura surrounding a football game. Again, it is different from the colleges to the pros.

- maybe back to the first point, but it's very start/stop. You have massive rosters, and completely different players depending on whether you're attacking or defending. Not many sports I can think of actually have that.

That goes back to the complicated nature of the sport. But, FYI, the rules do not require all that specialization. It is just the way the game developed. At one time, early on the same players played offense and defense.

If a team wanted to it could play the same 11 player on offense and defense.

The thing that football does that the other sports don't do is to have that "stoppage" when there is a shift from offense to defense. Other sports, (basketball/hockey) have more automatic transitioning. (though baseball does have the same stoppage)

Again, it's an evolution, hyper-specialism. Perhaps if the roster wasn't so large, compared to other sports, the specialism wouldn't be so great. If you only had a game day roster of 20 guys, you'd have to be much more versatile.

That would be going backward. The rosters have increased due to specialization. It is not going to devolve. Besides, no one wants it too, particularly not just to satisfy people that can't follow along.

Anyway, all that being said, I do love the sport as it is and wouldn't want to change it. BUT, people dismiss the sport because of things like this.

To paraphrase Yogi Berra: if people want to be stupid, you can't stop them.

As for the penalty shootout, it's not the best way to determine a game, I agree. There have been suggestions on how to improve it but none that have gained any traction. In terms of the offside, the rule is that you need to have two players between you and the goal when the ball is passed, and then you can do whatever you want. You don't need two players when you shoot.

Having the shootout in the middle of the game is a ridiculous idea, I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense whatsoever.

I am not saying to stop things and have that shootout....I am saying if you eliminate that 2 defender rule you describe above what you will get within the natural action of the game is essentially a shootout on occasion: goalie and scorer, mano a mano.

But then it's far too easy to just hit a long pass to the guy on his own and he scores. The game used to be played like this, was changed and is now better for it, much more tactical. Imagine saying that the eligible receivers could line up where they liked on either side of the LoS?

No, that is not a apt analogy at all. The better analogy would be to say "a wr must have a defender between him and the goal line in order to catch a pass" Bollix!(besides, soccer doesn't have "plays" per say like football...there is no obligation to reset after a certain event occurs like a tackle)

Besides....why would it be too easy to hit a long pass to a guy in soccer? There are two teams on the field, nay? If that soccer player runs down the field toward the goal line to try to take a pass....then the job of the other team is to cover and defend the motherfucker......just like it is done in football, hockey, basketball. If you are too much of a slow ass to defend the guy making a break downfield then you deserve to be scored on easily. And besides....you still have the freeking goalie....and his job not to sit there and be a potted plant.

It's not like every game ends in a shootout by any stretch. In league games there's absolutely no problem with a game ending in a draw - why would there be? Two teams have played equally well, what's the need to have a winner? The league is just a round robin, each team plays each other team home and away. 20 teams in a league, 38 games, it's very rare that two teams are tied on points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, favouring teams going for a win), and even then goal difference is the decider, and then goals scored. It hasn't happened in any league I've been following in my life time.

I am not opposed to a draw.....but the MLS Championship game this year was decided by a shootout. These guys played soccer for like 2 hours, but then they stopped and had this silly shootout decide a winner.

It is like saying that the Super Bowl, if tied after a certain period of time, will be decided by having a Field Goal kicking contest.

Or by having the World Series decided by a home run hitting contest.

Hell, to me, just keep playing the damn game until players on one team or another drop and someone scores.

Yeah, that sucks. Nobody thinks that it's the 'ideal' solution by any means. Golden goal was trialled, for several years - after which there'd be penalties if there's no goal in 30 minutes - then voted against. Maybe it's better if you get the ball on the centre spot with a defender between you and the goal, and you go for it. Probably not, though, IMO.

Better to just play the game. Like I said, eliminating the offside to me would open it up....cause more scoring....and result in fewer ties and elongated OT perids in which nothing happens and then have the game decided by some silly, bastardized shootout contest.

Why not just eliminate the first 90 minutes....change the name of the game to "Shootout" and just play the game that way instead.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, well, stereotypical reasons that people don't get too interested in the NFL over here include:

 

- after 5 seconds of action the clock stops and we have 40 seconds (play clock) of analysis. then after everything of interest - touchdown, field goal, PAT, punt, kick off, fumbles, interceptions, turnovers of any kind you have adverts. This really pisses a lot of people off. This is also a complaint about cricket, and probably baseball?

 

- it's "girls' rugby" - all the padding etc. gives the impression that it's a woman's game.

 

- it's complicated. If you've not grown up with it, it can seem ridiculously complex, and not necessarily in a good way. For example, you have Offside, Neutral Zone Infraction, Unabated to the QB, False Start, which all basically mean the same thing, that someone moved before the snap when they shouldn't have.

 

- it's too stylised - can't find the right word at the moment, but it gives the impression with the cheerleaders, the pyrotechnics and things that the sport comes second to the entertainment - moving in the direction of wrestling?

 

- maybe back to the first point, but it's very start/stop. You have massive rosters, and completely different players depending on whether you're attacking or defending. Not many sports I can think of actually have that.

 

Anyway, all that being said, I do love the sport as it is and wouldn't want to change it. BUT, people dismiss the sport because of things like this.

 

 

As for the penalty shootout, it's not the best way to determine a game, I agree. There have been suggestions on how to improve it but none that have gained any traction. In terms of the offside, the rule is that you need to have two players between you and the goal when the ball is passed, and then you can do whatever you want. You don't need two players when you shoot.

 

Having the shootout in the middle of the game is a ridiculous idea, I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense whatsoever. It's not like every game ends in a shootout by any stretch. In league games there's absolutely no problem with a game ending in a draw - why would there be? Two teams have played equally well, what's the need to have a winner? The league is just a round robin, each team plays each other team home and away. 20 teams in a league, 38 games, it's very rare that two teams are tied on points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, favouring teams going for a win), and even then goal difference is the decider, and then goals scored. It hasn't happened in any league I've been following in my life time.

Girls rugby? Dude stay in England with that bullshit. If that were true why aren't the biggest rugby players tryin. To get into the NFL where its a girl game that pays way way way better than rugby? Oh right because the toughest rugby player in the world would be an NFL kicker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...