A sign of kits to come?

It has recently come to our attention that Adidas, that bastion of sports apparel for so many years, has... well... how can we put it... adopted a corporate policy of giving free hallucinogenics to all its employees.

If you don't believe us, take a look at this shirt currently being worn by French rugby union club Stade Francaise...



It is, we think you'll agree 'different'. And to build on such colourful foundations, Stade Francaise have also adopted this as their 'Third' shirt:



Now before you go and book up that eye test you've been putting off for the last three years, we'd like to point out that Stade Francaise do have a second shirt amongst their repertoire as well, but it's pink and is more conventionally styled than the two above, so we won't concern ourselves with that for now.

So the question remains, what do you think of the above? Whether you like them or not, we happen to think it's going to be the next big thing in football shirt design too. Let's face it, many teams have jumped at the chance to adopt all kinds of new designs in the past, and this could be the leap forward that some clubs have been looking for to get ahead of the rest of the crowd fashion-wise.

It's a bold step by Adidas and one which, we assume, they should be congratulated on for coming up with something so incredibly alternative. The only thing we're not sure about is the effect a rugby player bearing the physique and body weight of a disused coal bunker wearing brown and pink would have on an innocent spectator. We're sure they've already tested that under scientific conditions, though...

In praise of the 'round ball game'

One of the things that makes my life interesting is that my wife was born in New Zealand. It therefore follows that she sees things from a distinctly non-British angle that adds a nice element of variety to your day-to-day existence.

As her husband, I've had to come to terms with one thing above all others - her compulsion for watching Rugby Union at every opportunity. This isn't something I share her passion for particularly, although I've tried to catch one or two games involving the All Blacks by way of 'showing an interest'.

Anyway, as you can imagine, my TV watching schedule has been severely disrupted this last few weeks by the arrival of the Rugby World Cup 2007. With some inevitability, I've ended up with no other choice but to watch some of the action taking place from time to time, although I can at least claim to be supporting the current world champions - even if I don't know most of the England team that won four years ago.

It's with this new-found knowledge that I now feel capable of giving all you non-Rugby types out there my concise guide on how the Rugby World Cup differs from the Football equivalent. Here's what you need to know…

1) Tiny countries that barely ever appear on the radar internationally qualify to play in the Rugby World Cup Finals purely because they own a ball. When did the likes of Tonga, Fiji and Western Samoa ever take their place alongside the Brazils and Germanys of this world in Football?

2) The Rugby World Cup Finals feature only sixteen teams but last for seven long weeks. That's how long it takes the FIFA World Cup to take place including all the qualifying games.

3) Because of the small number of teams capable of playing a decent standard of game and the long duration of the tournament, the International Rugby Board are thinking of downsizing everything for 2011. By contrast, FIFA's tournament has grown and grown to the point where we could soon actually see Fiji and Samoa qualifying as of right.

4) When FIFA say they've award a country the rights to host the World Cup they mean a country. The 2007 Rugby World Cup was awarded to France, however the IRB in their infinite wisdom pencilled in five games to take place in Cardiff and Edinburgh. Go figure.

5) Frequent stoppages take place in Rugby World Cup games so that the referee can call up a video replay of a contentious incident. These instances only delay the game by about 5 minutes at a time and happen no more than 8 or 10 times in a game. Matches last for eighty minutes which means fans get to see a good half an hour of action every time. Football World Cup matches don't use the video replay system. Discuss…

6) Players are only allowed to receive medical treatment when a referee deems it to be life-threatening. Broken bones, dislocations and blood seen emanating from flesh wounds are not considered reason enough to allow players to leave the field of play. In the football equivalent, a player only needs cough to ensure the game is stopped for 25 minutes while a priest administers the last rights to him.

7) The controversial issue of the 2007 Rugby World Cup has been the 'roundness' of the official match balls. In the last football World Cup, one of the main issues was that the ball was too round. This caused many shots to fly over the cross-bar - a positive boon in rugby matches.

There may be more things I can think of, but I'll leave it up to you to add more if you like. Personally, it's made me all the more hungry for South Africa 2010...

Video Nasty

A postscript to the article of November 22nd 2006. Back then, we spoke of the unending criticism of referees and the dissatisfaction that club managers have of their performances. One of the sub-topics that emanated from that discussion was the use of video replays and how they could be used to assist or even (dare we say it) replace the officials.

It's been used in Rugby and Cricket matches the world over for some time and appears to work well in a number of situations, so why not Football?

The answer, perhaps, lies in an incident that occurred during the England v Scotland Six Nations match at Twickenham a couple of days ago. Jonny Wilkinson, back in the side for the first time since his heroics helped win the 2003 Rugby World Cup Final, was having a wonderful game, kicking point after point to put Scotland under early pressure.

To top off a wonderful performance, Wilkinson received the ball and began a long speedy run down the wing towards the corner of the pitch. His moment of glory looked secure as he dived near to the corner flag to plant the ball over the line for a try when a member of the Scottish team dived across to bundle him out of play.

The ball had certainly been put down over the touchline, but had Wilkinson strayed over the sideline first? There was nothing else for it - the video judge had to be called into action to look at the replay and make a decision on the referee's behalf.

The verdict? Try to England. Major celebrations and hysterics ensued in the English section of the crowd, not to mention a healthy slapping of Jonny Wilkinson's back by his team-mates to acknowledge such a fine try.

The thing is, it wasn't a try at all. Despite having clear video footage showing Wilkinson with one foot in contact with the ground on the wrong side of the line when the ball was put down, the Irish video judge still managed to make the wrong decision. It should never have been given, and frankly there was no excuse for making such a bad error of judgement.

All of which goes to show that even the use of video replays to help referees isn't perfect. Perhaps in a game where the human being is imperative to its very existence, surely we can allow for a little human error once in a while?