Just commented on the most violent game thread but it just reminded me that rugby has always been a game of size and guile. That all shapes and sizes can play the game and each player can have a valuable contribution. 

Jonah Lomu is a legend that is respected even today. So what made him such a big hit. He never won the World Cup nor ever scored a try against SA. 

His, size and pace. He would just bull doze over players or could even do a bit of side step. Not a big lumbering forward that have brute strength, but a man mountain that can run like the wind and had fantastic balance. Os Du rant and Ollie Le Roux were another two big boys that had a bit of pace but they always looked like they were falling over their feet. 

So what is it that fans love then? 

It is simple, nothing better seeing players being bounced off. Or better than a big hit that knocks a player back ball and all. How about schalc tackle on Fourie Du Preez. 

But, as big as they come, you alway found the little guy coming up against all odds to bring a big player down. Joost wasn't a small guy but he was able to bring Lomu down. James Small was smaller than Joost and also could bring Lomu down. They you had Breyton Pulsa that did the same, but would do head high tackles which is illegal today to bring him down. 

Today we see more of the smaller players making a comeback into rugby. The likes of Kolbe, Coppertino from Italy and Ntmak from France is not a big flyhallf but with a lot of skills. 

I just wish world rugby would accept that rugby is a game of collisions and we love it. Stop with the yellow and red cards and let the game be played in its physical way

They are creating a simp society. That's why we have all of these issues in our society. They cannot accept this, and cannot think logically. It's natural for men to want to compete, it's natural for both men and women to appreciate athletic excellence. That's just the way it is. We all know the risks involved. As a 7 year old boy, I didn't need to be a doctor to now what a collision is, and the risk of injury. It's a choice the individual has to make for themselves. Interestingly, these same people don't have a problem reinforcing mental illness, mutilating people, eliminating entire cycles of human development, altering hormones with disastrous consequences. It's interesting what they deem to be safe, and what they consider to be dangerous. It's always hypocritical, illogical, and nefarious. 

Well, more people die from horse riding than playing rugby or taking illegal drugs. 

It is in our DNA to take risk. As a human, we don’t stand a chance with our bare hands if we were to fight a wild animal. Life was brutal. Both woman and men seek adventure, that adrenaline rush that we get when we are in danger or even the joy of accomplishing a physical feet. Female gymnast blow my mind, yet they throw themselves around. 

UFC has become massively popular. 

Unfortunately, the World Cup will be lost and not won and will be decided by a ref or should I say refs and stupid TMOs. 

So the team playing the least physical game will win. All you have to do is just defend on your knees, hope the other team gets red carded and all of a sudden you have the upper hand

If rugby follows the pattern of the past couple of years, the Boks don't have to worry about the refs. We definitely have the better end of that deal, but the spectacle may still be lost. It's the worst feeling watching an opponent taken out of a contest artificially and wondering, what if? It isn't always the team who plays the least physical rugby. Rugby is very corrupt and there is definitely a bit of back scratching, I believe that's part of the obscene bias we receive from refs. The cards need to stop, or at least, they need to be awarded appropriately. I have seen over a dozen card worthy offences being ignored, but then something mild is absolutely nailed! That's an awful spectacle. 

They are creating a simp society.

Who they. Liberals have the biggest troubles accepting the society they have built. They usually look for an external influence.

In a liberal society, trade is central. In professional rugby, players accept to trade their health against the prospect of a luxury life.

They are up to ruining their healty to a certain point, though: the point their health is so ruined they can not enjoy what is promised to them as a trade item, the luxury life.

At the moment, the most pressing group is formed by players who are on the wrong side of the deal, unable to recognize their children, forced to wear diapers etc

They are the threat that hovers around and is about to seek legal compensation.

But, hey, trade is the cardinal and ordinal value for liberals, nothing must disrupt it.