rugby is stupid
The other night I ended up watching television (television! It's been, like, six weeks.) at my friend Junior's house with a very interesting group of people. We were watching a rugby match between England and Ireland, which was the championship game in something called the Six Nations ("It's like your Super Bowl," said Bitter Newcastle Mike. (To be fair, Mike was already annoyed with me for asking why England's team mascot isn't something more intimidating than a rose. I guess if you're playing leprechauns, it doesn't matter.)). That may be, but in the Super Bowl, the winner of the game is the winner of the season. Not so here. Despite the fact that Ireland crushed England with a last minute field goal, France was the winner of the Six Nations.
Now, I'm certainly not the sharpest tack on the old bulletin board, especially when it comes to sports played in countries that have national cricket teams, but where I come from, the winner of a tournament has to play in the tournament championship game. Then again, it's France.
Given that, plus the fact that I was harassed all night about how much better rugby is than American football, I've concluded that any game in which you're required to throw the ball in the opposite direction from that towards which you're trying to advance, and in which the game is only stopped when one of the players is, to quote a commentator, "spewing blood" (and even then he didn't leave the game), doesn’t make sense. Period.