Probably the best punch of the whole fight... was (the one that was) never laid.

George Foreman

Rumble in the Jungle - Foreman vs Ali

Kinshasa, Zaire

October 30, 1974

As seen in 2009's Facing Ali.

Censored In Singapore

By Clark Hoyt

The New York Times

LAST month, on the same day The New York Times praised Google for standing up to censorship in China, a sister newspaper, The International Herald Tribune, apologized  to Singapore’s rulers and agreed to pay damages because it broke a 1994 legal agreement and referred to them in a way they did not like.

Some readers were astonished that a news organization with a long history of standing up for First Amendment  values would appear to bow obsequiously to an authoritarian regime that makes no secret of its determination to cow critics, including Western news organizations, through aggressive libel actions. Singapore’s leaders use a local court system in which... they have never lost a libel suit.

The notion that it could be defamatory to call a political family a dynasty seems ludicrous in the United States, where The Times has routinely applied the label to the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Clintons. But Singapore is a different story.

Lee Kuan Yew once testified, according to The Times, that he designed the draconian press laws to make sure that “journalists will not appear to be all-wise, all-powerful, omnipotent figures.”

Steven Brostoff of Arlington, Va., wondered whether The Times had other agreements like the one with the Lees, and asked, “What conclusions should we draw about how news coverage from these countries is slanted?” Zeb Raft of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, asked if The Times was admitting that certain world leaders “deserve to be treated with deference. This is the implication of the apology.”

Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said, “Nobody in this company has ever told me what our reporters can write — or not write — about Singapore.” He said the Times newsroom has no agreements with any government about what can be reported. “We don’t work that way.”

Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page, said, “If we have something that needs to be said on the editorial or Op-Ed pages, on any subject, we will say it, clearly and honestly.”

That is what the late William Safire did on the Op-Ed page in 2002, when he criticized Bloomberg News for “kowtowing to the Lee family” by apologizing for an article about the elevation of the younger Lee’s wife to run a state-owned investment company. Bloomberg, he said, had “just demeaned itself and undermined the cause of a free online press.”

Richard Simmons was the president of The Herald Tribune in 1994 and authorized the agreement that was broken last month... “We had, in my view, no choice,” he said. “What the American media absolutely refuse to recognize is Singapore operates on a different set of legal rules than does the United States.” He said Western news organizations can accept the legal system there or leave.

For The Herald Tribune and all the other news organizations that have paid damages to Singapore’s rulers (The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Bloomberg) or had their circulation limited there (Time, The Asian Wall Street Journal, The Economist), the choice has been to stay.

Singapore... has outsized economic power as a financial hub, making it an important source of news. For The Herald Tribune, the economic stakes are large: more than 10 percent of its Asian circulation is in Singapore. It prints papers there that are distributed throughout the region. It sells advertising to companies throughout Asia that want to reach readers in Singapore.

“If you want to be a global paper, it has lots of banks, lots of commerce, a highly educated, English-speaking population,” said Karle. “It’s hard to turn your back on that.”

Faced with this predicament when the Lees objected to the article last month, The Herald Tribune apologized and paid up — $114,000 — before it was even sued. Karle said the paper could have spent a million dollars for a worse result in court: forced to pay higher damages and make a more humiliating apology.

But settling the way it did has its own price. Roby Alampay, the executive director of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance, told Agence France-Presse, “This continuing line of major media organizations too quick to offer contrition and money is a sad sight and a persisting insult on legitimate journalism, fair commentary, free speech and the rights that Singaporeans deserve.”

Safire told The American Journalism Review in 1995 that the world’s free press should unite and pull out of Singapore in the face of any new libel action. I think that is what should happen too, but it never has.

That leaves the Times Company with its own choice if another challenge arises.

Google faced a similar painful dilemma in China. With potentially billions of dollars at risk, it stuck to its principles, and The Times applauded editorially. I think Google set an example for everyone who believes in the free flow of information.

Find the full story here.

Wish for 24th

to make it convenient for people who consider themselves my friends, these are the things i hope to get this 7 may.

1. Fred Perry shoes
2. High-cut velcro shoes
3. Bomber jacket
4. Ticket to Jay Chou's July Singapore concert
5. (pending)

lol i wish right? im such a dreamer.

The Open Letter from Reporters Without Borders to Lee Hsien Loong

Dear Prime Minister,

A foreign news organisation has yet again been forced to apologise to you and your father and pay you a large sum of money for publishing an article you did not like. This time it is the New York Times Co. that is a victim of this double punishment because of a compliant judicial system that always rules in favour of you and your family in all the lawsuits you bring against foreign news media.

Before the New York Times Co., you succeeded in punishing the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), FinanceAsia.com, The Economist, International Herald Tribune and Asian Wall Street Journal for their coverage of the political and economic situation in your country.

Threatened by a trial, the New York Times Co. apologised to you and your father, Lee Kuan Yew, for the article “All in the Family,” written by Philip Bowring and published in the 15 February issue of the International Herald Tribune. As well as an apology, this US media company had to pay 114,000 US dollars in damages.

Your lawyer, Davinder Singh, said Bowring’s article violated an “agreement” between your family and the International Herald Tribune, which was sentenced in 1994 to pay a large sum in damages for an article entitled “The claims about Asian values don’t usually bear scrutiny.”

The now defunct Far Eastern Economic Review agreed last November, after a long legal wrangle, to pay you and your father 290,000 US dollars in damages. Despite a lack of evidence, Singaporean judges ruled in favour of your family both in the original trial and on appeal without a thought for media freedom.

Reporters Without Borders condemns the judicial harassment which you and your father have practiced for years in order to prevent foreign news media from taking too close an interest in how you run your country. It does serious and lasting harm to press freedom in Singapore.

Your government has repeatedly displayed a disturbing inability to tolerate foreign journalists. Last October, for example, Ben Bland, a British freelancer who strings for The Economist and The Daily Telegraph, was denied a visa and permission to cover an APEC summit in Singapore. “I was forced to leave Singapore after the government refused to renew my work visa without any explanation,” Bland told Reporters Without Borders.

But the censorship has above all affected local media and local artistic production. In October 2009, for example, the ministry of information, communication and arts upheld a ban on a documentary by Singaporean filmmaker Martyn See about government opponent Said Zahari.

In response to the publication of the Reporters Without Borders 2009 press freedom index, in which Singapore was ranked 133rd out of 175 countries, your law minister, K. Shanmugam, described it as “absurd” and “disconnected from reality.”

Unfortunately, the facts show that we are right.

In the six years since you became prime minister and said you favoured an “open” society, we have seen very few improvements in the situation of free speech.

We therefore think your government should take the following measures as a matter of urgency:

1. Put a stop to the libel actions which you and your relatives have been bringing against Singaporean and foreign media that cover Singaporean developments in an independent manner. As the UN special rapporteur for freedom of expression recently said, the prime minister, his minister and high officials must refrain from suing journalists over their articles and comments.
    
2. Amend the criminal code so as to abolish prison sentences for press offences.
    
3. Amend the press law, especially the articles concerning the granting of publication licences. The current restrictions are preventing the emergence of independent media. The film law should also be relaxed.
    
4. Reform the national security law so as to abolish administrative detention, which allows the authorities to imprison people because of what they think.
    
5. Reform the Media Development Authority so that it is no longer able to censor and can solely make recommendations about TV programmes and films.
    
6. Allow government opponents and civil society representatives unrestricted access to the public media.
    
7. Guarantee the editorial independence of all the media owned by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Media Corporation of Singapore (Mediacorp).
    
8. Transfer the money that your family has obtained in damages from foreign and Singaporean news media to a support fund for imprisoned journalists that Reporters Without Borders proposes to set up.

We regret that you, the members of your government and your father keep citing the need to guarantee Singapore’s stability as grounds for controlling the media and maintaining its draconian laws. Countries that show the most respect for press freedom, such as Finland and Norway, are peaceful and prosperous democracies. Freedom of expression is not a source of political unrest. Quite the contrary.

You have perpetuated your father’s legacy by continuing to harass and intimidate news media. As a result, aside from a few websites specialising in Singapore, no news outlet can publish independent news and information about issues affecting the political situation in your country.

We would be very honoured to be able to meet with you in order to talk about our observations and our proposals for guaranteeing press freedom in Singapore in person.

Respectfully,

Jean-François Julliard

Secretary-General

Paris

All in the Family

the International Herald Tribune article that caused the latest round of judicial harassment from our government.

By Philip Bowring

Are political dynasties good or bad? Election time in the Philippines is a regular reminder of the roles that feudal instincts and the family name play in that nation’s politics. Benigno Aquino, son of the late President Corazon Aquino, is the front runner to succeed President Gloria Arroyo, daughter of Diosdado Macapagal, a president in the 1960s.

Senate and Congressional contests will see family names of other former presidents and those long prominent in provincial politics and land-owning. But the Philippines is not unique. Dynastic politics thrives across Asia to an extent found in no other region apart from the Arabian peninsula monarchies.

The list of Asian countries with governments headed by the offspring or spouses of former leaders is striking: Pakistan has Prime Minister Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto, herself the daughter of the executed former leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bangladesh has Sheikh Hasina, daughter of the murdered first prime minister, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. In Malaysia, Prime Minister Najib Razak is the son of the second prime minister, Abdul Razak. Singapore’s Lee Hsien Loong is Lee Kuan Yew’s son. In North Korea, Kim Il-sung’s son Kim Jong-il commands party, army and country and waiting in the wings is his son Kim Jong-un.

In India, the widow Sonia Gandhi is the power behind the technocrat prime minister, Manmohan Singh, and her son Rahul is showing political promise and being groomed in the hope of filling the post of prime minister, first occupied by his great grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru. In Japan, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is the scion of a Kennedy-like political dynasty: His father was a foreign minister, and his grandfather was a prime minister.

Indonesia’s last president, Megawati Sukarnoputri, is the daughter of its first, and family ties could well play in the next presidential election when the incumbent, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, must retire. In Myanmar, the durability of the opposition to the military owes much to the name of Aung San Suu Kyi’s independence-hero father as well as to her stoicism.

Thailand lacks obvious political dynasties but that is likely because there is already a monarch. South Korea’s rough and tumble democracy would seem to leave little scope for dynasties but even there, the political career of Park Chung Hee’s daughter, Park Geun Hye, has benefited much from her father’s reputation.

In China, family connections help immensely but the party is still a relatively meritocratic hierarchy. Vietnam is similar. In the Philippines, it is easy to blame dynastic tendencies for the nation’s stark economic failures. But its problems go much deeper into the social structure and the way the political system entrenches a selfish elite. It is a symptom not the cause of the malaise.

In India, the Gandhi name has been an important element in ensuring that Congress remains a major national force at a time when the growth of regional, caste and language based parties have added to the problems of governing such a diverse country. In Bangladesh, years of fierce rivalry between Sheikh Hasina, daughter of one murdered president and widow of another, have been a debilitating factor in democratic politics. But their parties needed their family names to provide cohesion and without them there could have been much more overt military intervention. Ms. Megawati was a poor leader but just by being there helped the consolidation of the post-Suharto democracy. Dynasties can be stultifying too. In Malaysia, the ruling party was once a grassroots organisation where upstarts like former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad could flourish but over time it has become a self-perpetuating patronage machine. Too many of the key players are the offspring or relatives of former leaders.

There are more fundamental problems, too. Most current Asian dynasties trace themselves to the post-1945 political transformation. In that sense they have become a crutch, reflecting a failure to devise systems for the transfer of power to new names, faces and ideas.

Dynasties are a poor commentary on the depth of democracy in their countries. Without parties with a coherent organisation and a set of ideas, politics becomes about personalities alone and name recognition more important than competence. Parties run by the elite offspring of past heroes easily degenerate into self-serving patronage systems.

So dynastic leadership in Asia’s quasi-democracies can provide a focus for nations, a glue for parties, an identity substitute in countries that used to be run by kings and sultans. But it is more a symptom of underlying problems than an example to be followed.

-END-

seriously, what's wrong with this article and the mention of the Lees? within the context of the story and its editorial direction, i feel it is perfectly acceptable and justified.

父母教 须敬听 亲憎我 孝方贤

i went to City Harvest on Easter. not exactly to check it out for myself what's the fuss (and anti-fuss) but more for non-religious reasons.

and i have a confession to make: i was enlightened.

before you go gaga or smlj, it helps to know it wasnt about Christianity, or about myself and faith. something specific, in fact. about life and a more pragmatic enlightenment.

you see, ive always subscribed to the philosophy that religion is for the lost. that when reality fails to compensate what we need emotionally, it is inadvertent that an irrational solution is sought. im not judging religion here, just stating its role as a counsellor, a healer, a teacher, or in more blunt terms, the secret friend whom you dont give a damn about but is always there when you need it. which is why religions, more prevalent in christianity, always have stories and anecdotes of people finding God through so-called miracles. which is also why the entity of an Almighty leaves the biggest impression on a person under the heaviest stress.

so coming full circle, i saw something about my situation. im not arguing i dont ever get lost or need strength to go on or make a decision. but ive never been thrown into a situation so dire that everything around me was hopeless.

and for that, while thinking at the megachurch's mega Easter production, i could only credit one party in my life for this. or rather, two. and they're not supernatural.

thanks mummy and papa. my upbringing was quite strict and might not have the material luxuries many kids have, but ive never had to worry about food on the table, clothes for warmth and a shelter over my head. a cohesive, hardworking middle-class family. they might be Buddhists and religion might have guided them thus far, but their grit, gumption and morals make them my God, and my siblings'.

so maybe after all, the Heavenly Father in Christianity is indeed our own fathers (parents).

and maybe Confucius was right. worship your parents, over worshipping an entity, an idol or an altar.

Most Ridiculous Photo-Caption 2009

lim swee say transforms into a woman by a book on single mums.

p.s. thus! im sure you love this!

Manchester United 3-2 Bayern Munich

it was all good. to the extent we thought the real man utd had shown up, the 2 defeats in the last 8 days were flukes, and maybe even a roma was in store. we played football like we knew and made bayern look like a second-grade team.

for 45mins.

fergie did the wise thing and dropped the three stalwarts. they were simply not good enough and too slow against chelsea and bayern last week. and fergie wasnt sentimental. in came rafael, gibson and nani, three youngsters who grabbed their chances and starred.

for 45mins.

and the mother of all shockers. the gaffer tricked both the media and van gaal by saying rooney had no chance and he wont risk him. rooney the magic healer started and although wasnt 100% his usual level, made a difference. for 45mins.

disaster then struck. and everything went downhill from there.

unfortunately even with the positives, the man utd performance was about flaws again. after the first leg and chelsea defeats, this merely confirmed the whispers around manchester.

something needs to be done.

Rafael

without doubt the villain of the night. his immaturity cost man utd a semi-final place. no wonder everyone is saying if he wasnt sent off we would have won it. two stupid fouls, a red card, and the impetus went to bayern. the magnitude of losing him really was no joke. man utd went from controlling possession to struggling to touch a ball whisked around them.

Pathetic performance

and then the worst 25mins ive seen from man utd in the years ive supported them. with 10 men but still more than half an hour to go, they caved in. decided to sit back and defend the lead, a lead that would become elimination if bayern just manage one more goal. moreover, with the momentum on bayern's end, a dumbass would be able to tell it was a matter of time before bayern struck.

but it wasnt just that. it wasnt about sitting back like cowards in front of a hallowed but ashamed stretford end. it was about not being able to get the ball, not having the courage to play, and worst, no technique to.

o'shea came in, but he's one of the worst ball-carriers around; evra was probably the star left on man utd's team but he was shackled due to robben's presence. nani played alone upfront and valencia became a midfielder, not winger, seriously hampering his strengths. most disappointing of all were the trio of fletcher, gibson and carrick: the former two were a notch below the bayern midfielders, while the latter, the best technical player left, simply did not rise to the occasion.

i had to agree with david pleat that on hindsight, man utd should have gone for broke and continued playing, because that way bayern would stay afraid. what's more, with 10 men, a man utd playing counter-attack can become any team's nightmare, especially an opponent chasing a goal.

One Trick Pony

2009/2010 has been about rooney. man utd was all him. and struggled terribly without him. we had no spine against chelsea, and after an at-best 60% rooney was substituted, man utd became uninspired and a bunch of headless chickens. not just tactically, but psychologically. bayern became inspired with our only trick gone.

for everything that surrounded the departures of ronaldo and tevez, we are worse off, no doubt.

Bayern's superior tactics

give the germans credit. at whichever point when we played well over the two legs, the opponents were doing some things right. really right. they were so good at them it made me realise no other team seemed to have done them and and nullified us.

for one, was the way their midfielders consciously closed down our slow midfielders. it was one of the reasons they won the first leg, as scholes, giggs, fletcher and carrick got dispossessed countless times, and we had no solution to it. remember the days giggs would be steadfast enough to put off such harrying opponents, scholes was quicksilver and punished such opponents for their carelessness with positional discipline. then there were rooney, ronaldo, tevez, keane, van nistelrooy and hargreaves. but on wednesday it was painful watching man utd as the trio could not find their feet and steady themselves.

van gaal, i salute you.

the scarily best radio ads from the 2009 Siren Awards

21st Birthday

Annie

Manchester United 1-2 Chelsea

i said in january this is not man utd's season. that was when they wernt topping the league. since then they had overtaken chelsea when the blues uncharacteristically dropped points again.

to be honest, man utd has been poor this term. they wernt massacred cos chelsea, arsenal and liverpool have all been inconsistent. no one team has looked champion-worthy.

but in this six-pointer when they had to prove their season's worth, man utd wasnt just disappointing; they looked like they're going into another transition period.

from 2004 to 2006, man utd went for the first time in the premier league without a title in 2 years. and they fell outside the top 2 for the first time in the premier league as well. that was a terrible time for the club. we had sold a david beckham at the peak of his powers, then arsenal became the Invincibles and chelsea became filthy rich. as if it couldn't get worse, captain roy keane left next, leaving man utd truly soul-less. it's ok if man utd didnt win the titles; it was that they wernt even playing like how man utd should be. 2004 and 2005 they were so bad they ended the seasons more than 14 points less than the winners.

it's another transition year, and i worry for the club. after keane, free-scoring ruud van nistelrooy departed, but the future looked bright as cristiano ronaldo and wayne rooney were blossoming. now man utd's long-awaited world player of the year is gone while the other gem carlos tevez defected. in a season spearheaded by one man, rooney, it is no surprise we look as pathetic as when we were led only by van nistelrooy.

one man can only do so much, especially if you play world-class teams with numerous superstars.

face it, we have been awful this term, and flattering when we win by 3-0, 4-0 scorelines. milan was like a one-off fluke, plus they really run like a sunday team of uncles. then bayern came along and ate us up, exposing us in 90mins all the flaws we've had for years. to add insult to injury, rooney crashed and burnt, leaving us awaiting the guillotine 4 days later for the six-pointer.

Dimitar Berbatov

i'd like to forgive the fact that he cost so much. there have been other players who have cost us a lot and flopped worse, like juan veron. plus berba seriously looks the price tag, but it has been painfully rare. he was a terrific lone striker for bulgaria and tottenham, making me think he's coming into his own recently playing alone upfront, but chelsea brought me back to reality. against a team as solid as chelsea, berba alone was too lightweight. there was no presence in attack. john terry and alex ate him up, period.

The Stalwarts - Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, Gary Neville

their combined years at man utd breaches half a century.

not denying they can still contribute, they were exposed more often than not. sentimental or not, these old folks are still playing cos the youngsters are simply not good enough to step in; that's the sorry state of man utd's new generation. who leads by example like giggs? who has scholes' vision? and yesterday was actually one match neville played fairly well.

but their end is near. experience aside, they are no longer inspiring physically. when you're slower and uninspiring, it's time to step aside.

They don't belong in Manchester

keane lambasted players like john o'shea and darren fletcher before quitting, that they're not worthy of pulling on the legendary red jersey. he cant be wrong. o'shea is weak technically, and he's lucky to still be at the club after many others of similar calibre have been shipped out by fergie. fletcher, for all his effort, is like o'shea.

keane had a point, but the bigger issue isnt limited to just the two of them. we just dont have enough world-class players. technically, only rooney, berbatov, nemanja vidic, patrice evra, rio ferdinand and edwin van der sar still turn it on.

and most of those defend our goal.

Man for man

this was a chelsea missing didier drogba, ashley cole, michael essien, ricardo carvalho, jose bosingwa, michael ballack and branislav ivanovic, but they outplayed us all over the field. imagine a full-strength chelsea. only terry was their first choice but we hardly troubled them. frank lampard was heads and shoulders above our midfielders, while a past-his-prime deco, florent malouda whom i think sucks, and joe cole were electric.

i hate to diss antonio valencia cos he has been outstanding this season but he is no ronaldo. he might be damn effective as an old-school winger but he doesn't score and he doesn't scare opponents.

A bench of duds

missing michael owen, anderson, wes brown and owen hargreaves, man utd's reserves currently reads nani, federico macheda, mame biram diouf, ritchie de laet, darron gibson, gabriel obertan and the brazilian twins. who do we turn to in times of crisis like yesterday? what strength of depth?

and i dont understand why fergie either benches park ji-sung or subs him out first. the man contributes much more than others, draws so many fouls, and plays football like the man utd we know.

the most complicated game on earth

Rules of the Game

Introduction

Before we start, let's get one thing straight. This is not rugby league. This is not the bash-it-up, kick-it-on-the-sixth-tackle drudgery. This is something more aesthetic, more operatic, more hands-on, more international. This is rugby union. This is leather-patches, smoking jackets, cognac after dinner. This is a barbaric sport played by gentlemen, unlike rugby league, which is a barbaric sport played by barbarians. Yes, you've got the drift. And like any acquired taste, it requires a crash-course to work out what all these silly diversions, odd interruptions and strange names mean. Just be patient, because soon you will also be swilling the cognac around in the mouth, rather than spitting it out.

The aim of the game

Although rugby union appears a weird cross of world championship wrestling, Aussie Rules, rugby league, Gaelic football, netball, trampolining and anything else lacking logic, its prime purpose is simple - to get through the opposition's defence and place the ball over their try-line. Sounds simple, but it is as difficult as taking a screamer in the goal-square, then kicking the goal on the run over your left shoulder. No wonder everyone wets their pants when a try is scored.

The number of players - and their roles

Unlike rugby league, which has 13 players, there are 15 in union, comprising eight forwards and seven backs. Forwards are far more important in union because the scrum, which is a joke in league, is a vital attacking and psychological tool, and many Test matches are determined by what happens at the rucks and mauls, and in the lineouts. How dominant the backs are in a match, and how much space and time they have to work with is determined by the dominance of the forwards and the scrum. When a team's forwards are on top, it will invariably win. When the pack is shunted all over the paddock, massive losses are inevitable. Sixteen forwards bashing their heads into each other is somewhat uncouth, but it does mean something. It is the crux of the matter. Just nod accordingly.

The laws

Yes there are some. Many, actually. But most are too bewildering to attempt to fathom. So it is better for the uninitiated that we go on to the next subject - as one needs several million words even to attempt to explain most of them. If you find yourself confused during a game, you're not alone - most of the players are confused by interpretations of the rules as well. To avoid blank looks on the big night, just remember these three simple laws: a player cannot pass the ball forward; you don't laugh when New Zealand does the haka; the All Blacks always win.

Who plays where?

The muscle-men in the forward pack are the two props and one hooker, who make up the front row. The acrobats are the two second rowers (or locks), whose prime aim is to win the lineouts, which are elaborate versions of a throw-in, where instead of players spreading out you have 16 trying to elbow each other out of the way. The backrowers - a No.8 and two flankers - are the ruck-rovers of the team, whose prime aim is to gather the loose ball, be here, there and everywhere, and win the scraps.

The midget is the halfback, who tosses the ball into the scrum, and acts as the link between the forwards and the backs. He dives a lot. He does that because it looks good. The flyhalf is the organiser, deciding whether the team adopts a kicking game, or a ball-in-hand attacking game through the use of his two centres, who stand outside him. The wingers are the show-ponies, supposedly the fastest players in the team who finish off attacking movements with tries. The full-back is, as the term states, the last line of defence. But a full-back is often a full-forward as well - frequently being used as an unexpected attacking weapon.

Rucks and mauls

Unlike rugby league, in which a player who is tackled is allowed to hold the ball, return to his feet, and play the ball to a teammate, in rugby union the game continues. A player when tackled has to release the ball near him on the ground, which prompts each team's forwards to jump all over him in a bid to retain possession or to wrest it away. There are several ways the forwards can attack from this position: they can set up a ruck, which means the forwards reef the ball back with their feet, to start another phase of play; or they can start a maul, where they conduct an elaborate game of pass the parcel by keeping the ball in hand and transferring it from player to player. Many times the players will go into the tackle with the prime aim of setting up a rolling maul, or a ruck, believing it is the way to drive through an opposition pack. As you will discover, most of the game's penalties revolve around this area, because players do all sorts of sneaky things when they believe the referee will not see them under a pile of bodies. Indiscretions include wrongly jumping on top of each other, being off-side, using their hands when they are supposed to use only their feet, collapsing, and so on. This is a pandora's box.

Lineouts

One of the most spectacular parts of the game, even if it makes little sense. Lineouts also have the desired effect of giving the backs extra room to run around in, which they love. Backs just hate being cramped by the forwards.

The Referee

The guy with the whistle and different jersey is the referee (universally known as 'Mr Ref'). He is hated by everyone (players, spectators and officials), has never seen a rule book, and is usually the reason why teams lose.

If you have difficulty in identifying this guy, look out for the one at which spectators shout things like "phone call, Mr. Ref!", or "you left your spectacles in the dressing room!", or "since when is the rule book available in braille?" However, should a player make one of these remarks, you will recognise the referee as the one walking towards that player's try line with one arm in the air for 10 paces (and the player most probably towards the dressing room).

If you really want to make sure about the referee, you can try and find him in the referee's dressing room. Make sure you do this before the match starts. Afterwards he will either be locked inside (either by himself, or the players - most probably from both teams), or will be surrounded by an entire police force.

Touch Judges

There are 2 touch judges, or linesmen at a match. The touch judge usually carries a flag. He is a qualified referee (a misnomer - see 'referee') and normally from the home side, except in major matches, when he is supposed to be neutral (in which case he spins a coin to deside on whose side he is). His main duty is to hang out the said flag to point out to the referee the sins of the team that he opposes on the particular day. He also instructs the referee what punishment to dish out (presumably because the referee is blind, and therefore cannot read the rule book, which he does not possess, as said before).

Another important duty is to indicate whether a kick at goal is good. He does this by not actually watching the ball, but the other touch judge (who again is watching him), and then sticking his flag in the air (when the kick is good), or keeping it down. The referee invariably makes his own decision, since one flag is always up and the other kept down. This decision is a very tricky one since the referee is blind.

Finally, in case the referee is injured (or decided to leave early) he is replaced by one of the touch judges, at which point the visiting captain normally leads his team off the field for a few beers. Although they are trailing far behind, the score will be more respectable.

The touch judge also must from time to time interrupt a good game to claim his share of TV attention. He will then stand with the flag held out for a looong time. Till all come back to HIM. He will then tell the ref about some thing utterly horrible and totally unjust that he had to witness. The ref will then reverse probably the best play of the day and punish the side that started to play the game very well. The TV will then spend some time trying to figure out what the fuck the idiot saw. This creates a gap for the commentators to say things like "Well, he is down on the field and probably saw something...."

The linesman / touch judge's most important function is however to carry the shame of the losings sides' fans. He was crooked and that is why they lost. The winning side will then find instances to prove that he was even more shit. They should have scored another try as well. Without him the fans will have to find the reasons on the field.

Positions

Forwards

Easily recognisable by their cauliflower ears, facial scars and rippling biceps, although nowadays the ability to pass and keep up with play is important.

Props (Nos 1 and 3) - Large, but beautifully eloquent young men who, literally, prop up the scrum, the bar and any of their drunken team-mates after the match. Have the copyright on Mr Potatoheads thanks to the amorphous shape of their ears, nose and, for some unknown reason their knuckles. These warm, friendly chaps go through life with healthy, albeit often toothless, smiles. In general they are slightly overweight, although they prefer the term "solid." Like many forwards, they dream of one day hitting a drop goal in a real game and practice the skill diligently in training.

Hooker (No 2) - Known for his crafty ways and cauliflower ears, he's tart of the team whose actual role is to throw the ball to someone who's not expecting it in the line-out and hook it back with his feet in the scrum. Is the centre-piece of the front row, but has recently made bids for any of the backs' jobs by expanding his repertoire to include kicking, sprinting and being able to pass the ball.

Locks (Nos 4 and 5) - The abnormally tall chaps are strong and jump unfeasibly high to catch the ball in line-outs. They also get a kick out of sticking their hands between the legs and down the shorts of their stockier comrades in the front row. Also called the second row, they are known for their strength and athleticism, although not necessarily for their intellect. Most were not actually born slow; it is apparent, however, that years of jamming their heads between the front row's asses have taken a toll on their mental capacities. Nevertheless, locks remain an essential part of scrums and lineouts and are indispensable in rucking and ball possession. May come across as being slightly gormless, but become everyone's best mate in a crowded bar when getting beers or when a fight breaks out.

Flankers (Nos 6 and 7) - Used to play second row at school but stopped growing too early, although they may still feel the urge to jump for the ball in line-outs. They come in two forms - openside and blindside - depending on how quickly they can peel away from the scrum and whether or not they want to get their hair ruffled in rucks and mauls. These athletic machines have all the speed, talent, and skill of backs, but would rather enjoy the brutality of the scrum than sit idly by and watch the proceedings. They are confident, although not nearly as cocky as the backs, and they take great pride in flattening opposing scrum halfs, even if the hit is late. Such an honor is reserved for flankers because they are the most versatile players on the field, capable of producing awe-inspiring runs, running smart support lines, or playing hard-nosed defense if needed. Can tackle like demons and like to work in threes (with the No 8), chatting up the barmaid, mainly.

No.8 (No 8) - Known better as the number eight because whoever came up with the position names ran out of ideas by this time. Not big enough to be a second row and not fast enough to be a flanker. But he does share many of the versatile and athletic traits of the flankers. He may be seen running over opposing forwards, rucking for the otherwise helpless backs, or making booming hits in the open field. He has the speed to run around the defense, but would rather run over them if presented with the option. Reputedly a tough fellow, he bravely sticks his head in at back of the scrum and upsets the scrum-half by ignoring his call for the ball and going for glory himself. Bit of a loose cannon - given half a chance he'll drop a goal, a punch or his studs on the opposition.

Backs

These are the chaps who go off the pitch with their kit as clean as it was when they went on. Thus the labels of "pretty boys", "girlie backs" or "nancies".

Scrum-half (No 9) - Endearingly known as the "cocky little git with the big mouth" who, because they are the link between the forwards and the backs, is usually the first player grounded and receiving physio. He is scrappy and loud, and doesn’t shy away from a fight. In fact, he starts them most of the time. This sometimes gets him into trouble because he is too small to finish an altercation: usually a forward is required to intervene and save him. Has to have excellent hands and the ability to run around the pitch like a headless chicken, knocking the obstructing referee out of the way at every given opportunity. A good number nine will rake mercilessly and punch opposing players in the face. His passing and kicking skills are developed by necessity only. In reality, he is a forward trapped in a back’s body and would stick his nose in the scrums if allowed.

Fly-half (No 10) - The cockiest man on the field. Supposedly the bloke who can kick - well, a bit at least - as a result of which they either get all the glory or become the only possible reason why the team lost. The fly half supposedly leads the backs and directs the flow of the game, but he is usually found screaming out incoherent orders and yelling at others to ruck so he doesn’t have to. Often prone to attacks of self-preservation, which he'd rather call "creativity" - the sight of the opposition's forwards heading in his general direction makes him change what he was about to do and kick for touch (usually missing), therefore confusing his back line who are waiting to follow his original instructions.

Centres (Nos 12 and 13) - Hard tackling, deft running and a neat hairstyle usually does the trick. A good line in banter often helps as they work together to make up the rules in total disregard for whatever they're told by the fly-half. The inside center carries the ball far too often due to his proximity to the fly half.

Wingers (Nos 11 and 14) - Excluding the odd New Zealander, these boys are the failed hurdlers and sprinters with the figure which would look good in those lovely lycra suits. These speed demons hang around the outskirts of the action so as to keep their uniforms clean. Tend to miss the ball whenever it comes to them because they're trying to put their gloves on as they've been standing in no-man's land for however long watching everyone else run around. On occasion, they have a chance to break for long runs and excite the crowd, although more often than not they are tackled quickly or pushed out of bounds. Their weak statures also mean they tend to be injured quite easily. Wings look more like soccer players than rugby players, and always have over-inflated egos. On the occasion the forwards provide them with an easy opportunity to score, the wings take all the credit.

Full-back (No 15) - as he's the last line of defence, it helps if he can catch the ball or the oncoming opponent, although he frequently misses both, but is quite cute so the crowd try and cheer him up. The fullback’s status as a rugby player is questionable as he spends the majority of the game spectating from afar.

Rugby Survival Guide for Rugby Neophytes

Your first game

Let's keep it simple at the beginning.

1. Hit anything that is carrying the ball.

2. When you get the ball run like hell.

Subtleties of the Game

The Ruck: This is a situation where 3 to 20 people pile on top of the tackled player. The play is whistled by the the referee when all the air has been compressed out of the tackled player's lungs.

The Maul: Instead of being tackled to ground, the player is kept on his feet by the tacklers. The object is to bend as many of the ball carrier's fingers away from the ball. The play is whistled by the referee after the first cracking sound.

The Lineout: When the ball goes out of the playing area a "throw in" is awarded. The object is to elbow the opposing player's face while attempting to catch the ball.

Scrum: The eight forwards bind together and push against the other forwards. The real objective is to give the backs a chance to catch their breath.

Sources:
The Weird World of Rugby (c) M.M. Roelofs, Amsterdam, NL
Ryan Rennaker