KNOW THE GAME...................
by Spoke
I was watching the Six Nations rugby the
other day and a ‘newbie’ to the game
asked me why the referee kept blowing
his whistle and spoiling a good fight. Now,
this question was over a very difficult
issue at what is called ‘the breakdown’ of
play and I spent a while, until ‘newbie’ fell
asleep, explaining (badly). But afterwards
the issue got me thinking. OK, all you
rugby aficionados look away now.
When a successful tackle takes place and
players go to ground, the tackler must roll
away and get to his feet. The tackled
player has a moment, whilst held, to
‘place’ the ball at up to arms length only
and must then roll away and get to his
feet. Either player not complying is a
penalty. Any player on his feet can then
pick up and play the ball. If two players on
their feet then meet to contest the ball,
neither picking it up, that’s a ‘ruck’ and the
ball on the ground becomes the ‘gain’ line
and any more players joining to contest
must begin from behind the back foot
of his team’s player and not in the side.
The back foot is the offside line to the
team’s players and nobody, free of the
ruck, may be in front of this line at the
first play of the ball. Not complying is a
penalty. An incoming player may not
dive off his feet trying to get the ball –
penalty. A player not on his feet can’t
touch the ball, penalty if he does. If the
ball in the tackle doesn’t touch the
ground but is retained by the players
standing, it doesn’t form the gain line
and is playable by either side on their
feet and is called a maul. If the ball fails
to appear for play after a tackle then
generally a scrum is called (unless a
player is off his feet hanging on to it –
penalty!) the ‘driving’ forward team
getting possession………
What on earth has this got to do with
bikes? Simple: if we want to advance
the ball and win the game (biking) we
need to form a team. We need to know the
play. We need to know the rules.
Otherwise no progress can be expected of
us in trying to prevent bikers becoming the
pariahs of road users. For that is what
some road user lobbies hope will become
of us. Like the above, the means of
progress is littered with ‘rules’ and
‘penalties’ and it’s a sad fact that I don’t
think we’re well equipped to resist the
opposition.
Recent prosecutions in the papers clearly
show magistrates etc have no level
mandate to deal with the biker/speed
issues and that’s a failure of the biking
lobby. A Hyabusa rider was unfairly jailed
for speeding and what MIGHT have
happened if he lost control. He then made
things worse by saying he was selling the
bike as he couldn’t control it! The bloke’s a
lost cause, but that’s not the issue. The
issue is that the biking lobby is weak and
the consequences of biking
misdemeanours is a ‘carte blanch’ for
courts etc to mete out punishment at a
political whim. It shouldn’t be like that. We
should have a strong lobby that ensures
that political advantage is not taken, e.g.
where the public are made to look at
the machine instead of the person.
We must gather and direct our
resource to resist the marginalising of
biking!
As a personal observation I have no
time for the ‘it’s my choice if I wear
protective clothing or not’ group. No
person in their right mind would ride
without a crash hat (or car seatbelt)
and I can’t see the value of
championing the lost cause of riders’
rights to shorts and flip-flops. Those
promoting the banning of biking
because of the killed and seriously
injured statistics must be grinning
behind hands at unprotected riders.
So why can’t we as a lobby decide to
banish (or not – let’s decide) the no
clothes/loud cans groups. If the future
of biking is at stake through casualty
rates or anti social public perspectives
then why do we allow it? Agreeing
with this example doesn’t brand a
rider as a ‘Sam Brown’ – it’s about
thinking and choosing what will help
biking the most. Bus lanes, hi-viz,
filtering, parking, toll charges, road
