A question that gets thrown around very often by the ‘knowledgeable’ folk when it comes to sport and ‘knowledge’ regarding it is 'how much does one really have to know in order to offer an opinion?'. If you've had the fortune of attending a club rugby game or a school big match, you may have by now have gained the slightest of ideas as to what sort of a concept I'm trying to allude to. Picture this; no sooner does a ref blow a whistle and there are dozens (if not hundreds) unleashing rants that range from the eloquent to the downright perverse questioning or affirming the rationality of what has just transpired on the pitch. Some may have an upbringing refined enough to allow him/her to satisfy his frustration with a simple utterance of something like 'bad call, sir' whereas a sarong clad hippie, fuelled by alcohol, orbiting in the upper echelons of insanity may choose to be less polite by calling upon generations of mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers of the individual who he feels has made a blunder. Either way no matter what the lingo, the concept is very much intact; i.e when it comes to sport everyone's got an opinion irrespective of whether it's right or wrong. The only variation lies in how they choose to put forth their thoughts. In my humble opinion that's why sport is a great unifier. More on that later though.

A wise man once said Rugby is a rowdies’ game played by gentlemen. So what is so gentle about how the players conduct themselves at matches these days. One particular school’s rugby match ended with the referee’s life put in danger because of the behavior of the players. How can these youngsters be expected to have discipline when the example set on them by their role models is far worse?

Not as in match fixing, but like when you fix a problem. Here's how you do it.