If you live in the United States, it’s easier than ever to catch the action because BBC America is covering a match each week. Setanta Sports is also covering the competition in the US as the network enters its last month on the air in the United States, but BBC America is available to a lot more US households as it is not a paid subscription channel.

If you’d rather give yourself a bit more control over the tournament’s outcome, you can play it yourself with the BBC’s online Six Nations game. The game is a very simple one you can play with your Web browser, but it is surprisingly addictive. Beware–you may be surprised to find yourself spending hours enjoying the various “drills” and trying to top your score in the simulated matches.  Don’t say we didn’t warn you!

While you wait for the tournament to start tomorrow, here are some highlights from its last two incarnations:

2009:

2008:

Now, back to your feasting and merrymaking.

One problem, though, is that it has still often looked like there’s no legitimate third contender in the sport to pressure those two antipodean rivals, England went ahead and beat New Zealand today. That means that the Four Nations final won’t include New Zealand, and it also means that the tournament this year was competitive enough that tournament final will include a side with a loss (England) and a side with a draw (Australia). Only struggling France failed to emerge from the tournament without a win in the end, and even France led England at half-time when the two European sides met in the tournament.

A cynic might say that the emergence of apparent competitiveness between Australia, New Zealand, and England isn’t much, and that it only means rugby league is at best a three-horse race (even if France competed gamely with them and there are other interesting international matches going on right now as well). Compared to rugby union, for example with its hundreds of member nations, three sides offering legitimate contention for the title is far from competitive. Right? Maybe. After all, how many teams have held the top spot in the International Rugby Board’s rankings over their entire history since being introduced in 2003?

Let’s see: There’s England (ranked #1 at points during 2003 and 2004), New Zealand (ranked #1 from mid-2004 to late 2007 and during parts of 2008 and 2009), and South Africa (ranked #1 during parts of 2007, 2008, and 2009, including right now). That would be … three sides?

Looking at things that way, international rugby league might be reasonably competitive after all, more so if England can rise to the occasion in next week’s Four Nations final. In any case, it looks like rugby union is watching.

Here’s a fan’s view of a few moments from England vs. New Zealand:

We can’t find much other video out there yet to post for today’s matches, but here are some earlier tournament highlights:

Australia vs. England:

New Zealand vs. France:

Australia vs. New Zealand:

England vs. France:

In the wake of the now-infamous “Bloodgate” scandal involving a faked blood substitution during a Heineken Cup match earlier this year, a similar solution has been proposed. Among 16 suggestions made by an England Rugby Football Union task force on how to improve the sport is the recommendation that open “rolling” substitutions be given a trial run in an English domestic competition.

The idea has some prominent supporters.England manager and former England captain Martin Johnson argued today that the practice may be needed to discourage dishonest substitution practices. Of course, the suggestion has its detractors as well, particularly those who are concerned that opening up substitutions would dramatically affect the size and build of players used, but it looks to be getting taken seriously.

Will this be one way the rugby codes grow more similar than different over time? We’ll see. In any case, something need to be done to stop the substitution cheating. As the video of the “Bloodgate” incident shows (follow the link to view the clip), it’s certainly hard to catch the cheats under the current system (at least while the match is on). It certainly isn’t as obvious as this “reconstruction” we found online, anyway:

In a word, Twitter is a site that allows people to make accounts and post very short sentences about what they’re doing, sites they’d like people to read, questions for others, etc. In that way it’s not so different than a blog, but with entries of only 140 characters each. (No, the Armchair Playmaker site doesn’t have a Twitter account to go with this site–we just don’t have enough to say for two sites!) (UPDATE: A day after this post went up, we decided we couldn’t resist snooping on the stars and make an ACP twitter account.)

One of its most popular uses, though, is not to post but to read others’ entries. Users can make an account and “follow” another user to see what that user posts, so many people choose you “follow” friends and celebrities.

We’re not weighing in on whether the Twitter phenomenon is a passing fad or here to stay, but given the topic of the bog we may as well point out that there are a number of rugby union and rugby league personalities who use Twitter. Here are just a few of the well-known people and organizations from the rugby codes you can “follow” with Twitter to see what they have to say (or, if you don’t have a Twitter account, you can just look at their sites anyway):

-David Campese, former Australia rugby union star (not to mention uncle of current league star Terry),
-Will Carling, former England rugby union captain,
-Canterbury of New Zealand, popular union and league kit provider,
-Karmichael Hunt, best known at the moment for his impending jump from rugby league to AFL,
-Leinster Rugby, the 2009 rugby union Heineken Cup champions,
-Victor Matfield, South African rugby union star,
-Ewen McKenzie, who may need to change his “LeLink” Twitter name after getting sacked last -night as coach of Stade Francais, and
-Lote Tuqiri, former Australian union and league star who has used Twitter a fair bit of late to keep his fans informed.

You may find more of your own favorites if you look for youself. If you can’t resist the Twitter phenomenon, have a look at the video below to learn how to get on board. Just beware that you might be part of the majority of Twitter users who quit the service in the first month.

Anyone we missed who you’d like on the list? Leave a comment below with your recommendations.

Andrew Slack, who knows a bit about rugby union as a former Wallabies captain and selector, begs to differ. He argues that in general (with exceptions), the code crossers have done well for his country by starring in a number of test matches and hitting other performance goals.

It’s a compelling point, and similar arguments might be made for other nations. Jason Robinson left league in England to become a legend in union, and Farrell made a contribution by managing to play for his country in union despite being well out of his prime before the switch. Brad Thorn has starred for New Zealand in union and Australia in league, swapping codes and countries more than once in an ongoing career. (In fact, as much talk as there is about failed code switches, it is nation switches that may be the some teams’ bigger worry.)

Another issue worth mentioning is that other code transfers who continue to shine in union after switching before their prime, such as Berrick Barnes and Rocky Elsom, also seem to be quietly ignored in the criticism. In fact, the Wallaby Tri-Nations squad a year ago had five former NRL players in it if one counts the oft-forgotten Barnes and Elsom.

With all the money involved in some of the code swaps, there is plenty of room for debate on what counts as a good investment, just as there will be with Karmichael Hunt’s impending change to Aussie rules. That said, it’s hard to look at moments like these as evidence for total failure:

Considering that logic, the format of July’s two biggest three-match series in rugby league and rugby union might seem a bit odd to Americans. The British and Irish Lions tour culminates in a best-of-three test match series against the hosting nation, and the State of Origin interstate series is a best-of-three as well. This year, both series were “clinched” after two matches. On the Lions’ tour, South Africa won two in a row against the visitors while Queensland won the first two Origin matches against New South Wales. That left the final matches of both series with the derogatory “dead rubber” title. Competitors and fans were left with two matches that meant nothing to the series outcome.

One might ask: “Why bother playing them if they don’t matter?” The dead rubbers don’t matter to the series, sure, but have a look at these clips from the third matches of the two series and see if you think they didn’t matter:

British and Irish Lions match three:

State of Origin match three:

Dead rubbers indeed!

That “A” is a key letter in the team name, as it indicates that the side is Ireland’s second side and not the “true” side. That might imply that their matches don’t mean as much, but you wouldn’t so from looking at the Irish side as they won the tournament final 49-22 over their English counterparts, the England Saxons.

The contest between these representative sides brings to mind the broad variety in the names so many nations provide for their second-tier side. It can cause a bit of confusion, particularly given that at the club level many sides choose to refer to their first side as an “A” side and can thus misinterpret the “A” designator’s meaning at the national level. To help out any confused parties, here’s a list of prominent national second-level sides in rugby union with a brief explanation of each:

• “A” sides: In addition to Ireland, a number of other nations refer to their second side as the “A” side. Scotland, France, Italy, Wales, and Australia have all fielded “A” sides in recent years, though the latter two of these countries are not presently fielding an “A” side.
• England Saxons: The Saxons used to be referred to as England “A” (and previously as England “B,” to add to the confusion), but have been known as the Saxons since 2006.
• Junior All Blacks: Though the term “Junior All Blacks” might suggest an age-grade side, the Junior All Blacks are New Zealand’s second-grade side and do not have any age association.
• New Zealand Māori: Not technically a second-level side, New Zealand Māori can be mentioned on this list as a similar and unique national rugby union side. Players for the side are New Zealanders with at least one-sixteenth Māori heritage. Although the Junior All Blacks are New Zealand’s actual second-level side, the New Zealand Māori outfit has sometimes functioned as something similar to a second-tier New Zealand side by occasionally participating in tournaments such as the Churchill Cup and the Pacific Nations Cup in the Junior All Blacks’ stead.
• Emerging Springboks: Like the Junior All Blacks, the Emerging Springboks might sound like an age-grade side, but they are South Africa’s second-level representatives. Given that they earned a draw against the touring all-star British and Irish Lions yesterday, some might say they’ve already emerged!
• Argentina Jaguars: Like the Saxons, the Jaguars have a dedicated nickname that differs from their first-grade counterparts the Pumas.

In rugby league, officially-named second-tier national sides are featured less frequently, though there are some interesting representative sides such as:

• New Zealand Māori, which has the same eligibility requirements as the union version of the side,
• Indigenous Dreamtime, an Australian counterpart to the NZ Māori whose players are all at least one-sixteenth aboriginal in heritage, and the
• Prime Minister’s XIII, a side picked each year by the Australian Prime Minister to play against Papua New Guinea.

Hopefully that will help you keep track of all the monikers given to these second-string sides, which provide as much excitement as their first-grade versions in tournaments all over the globe each year.

Are any “A” sides missing from the list? Post a comment if so.

• The sides were locked at twenty-six points apiece after regulation, so two ten-minute extra periods were played.
• With the draw unbroken after extra time, the number of tries scored in the match was the next tiebreaker. This was moot, however, as each side had scored two tries during the match.
• each side nominated five kickers to attempt one placekick at goal each from the 22-meter line in front of the posts.
• After each side made four goals, the kicking competition went into “sudden-death” mode (wherein the first side to miss a goal loses, so long as the other side made a goal in the same round) with a new set of kickers. In the third round of this segment, Cardiff flanker Martyn Williams pushed an attempt wide to end the marathon and send Leicester into the final to be played in a couple of weeks.

The format was unpopular with many given that it forced players specializing in things other than goalkicking to do as much with the match at stake, but it was still exciting. Aside from the tense finish, the match also served to answer a few fans’ curiosity regarding how a tie is resolved in a knockout match after extra time.

Or did it? Actually, even though the format seen last weekend is used in the Heineken Cup, the format will be reconsidered next year. Further, other competitions don’t do it the same way, so seeing the shoot-out last weekend actually tells very little about how the matter is settled throughout the sport.

If you’ve read this far, we assume you’re interested in hearing how all of the competitions settle a draw in playoff situations where a winner must be determined, so here’s a partial list of competitions and their tiebreaking methods:

• The Guinness Premiership (England’s top domestic competition) has a similar format as the Heineken Cup, but the kicks vary in placement by round with some in front of the posts, some 15 meters from the left and right touch lines, and some 5 meters from each touch line.
• In the Super 14 (featuring top sides from New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa), two formats are used, on for the semifinals and one for the finals. In the semis, the sides play two ten-minute extra time periods, after which the deadlock is broken by number of tries scored in the semifinal. After that, though, the similarities with the Heineken Cup and Guiness Premiership end, as the winner is decided by who finished higher during the regular season. The final works the same for the most part, except that the championship is shared as a draw after two periods of extra time if the scored are still level.
• The Magners League (featuring top sides from Ireland, Wales, and Scotland) doesn’t have to deal with the issue, as they don’t have knockout matches and determine their winner after the regular schedule. This year, in fact, Munster clinched the title two matches left to play
• We couldn’t find a clear statement of the American Super League’s format, but we know from the 2008 final that “sudden-death” extra time is played after two extra time periods until one side scores to win.
• The tiebreaker methods used in the Top 14 (France’s top domestic competion) and Super 10 (Italy’s top domestic competition) elude Armchair Playmaker’s limited translation resources. Readers who are more adept at French and Italian are encouraged to chime in!

How do they handle it in rugby league? We’ll spare you the details, but note that for most competitions a “golden point” sudden-death period is either played after 80 minutes (as is done in the National Rugby League in every match) or after two short two extra time periods. The golden point seems to work pretty well–in fact, Leicester seems to support the idea after suffering through the alternative.

Hopefully, that satisfies your curiosity about how a draw is avoided when a draw will not do. Meanwhile, here are a few views of last weekend’s historic moment:

Here’s how the cameras caught it:

And here’s how it looked from at least one spot in the crowd:

We’re not sure it’s fair to focus on a missed goal from a player of Martyn Williams’ stature, especially considering that he probably never expected to be kicking at goal that day, so we’ll end here with a cheerier moment from early in Williams’ standout career (this one from more than a decade ago, before he ever donned a Cardiff shirt):

Without trying to sort out the reasoning behind this claim, Armchair Playmaker thinks it’s a good time to have a look at the way things where before the ELVs. The consternation about the ELVs making rugby union a “tedious display of kicking” might suggest that rugby union before 2008 was a slashing display of running rugby. To jog our memory, let’s consider the biggest match played in the year before the ELVs came our way: the 2007 Rugby World Cup Final.

A glance at the match statistics reminds us of a few things. For one, there were zero tries scored in the match. For two, each side only had one clean line break. But that’s a pretty superficial peek.

Let’s look closer. The stats also say possession was kicked away 92 times in the match (48 times by South Africa and 44 times by England). Meanwhile, there were 185 attempted tackles (97 by South Africa and 88 by England). If we assume that almost all phases of play end with an attempted tackle or a kicked ball, then adding the total tackle attempts to the total number of times possession was kicked away gives us a total of about 277 phases of play. If 92 of those phases involved possession being kicked away, then that means about 33% of the total phases in the match ended with posession being kicked away.

A third. Not a third of the times they had posession. A third of the total phases. So every time the ball went to a player from a ruck, scrum, lineout, kick, etc., there was about a one in three chance a player kicked it away. This estimate is a little rough, and is actually probably a little bit low if we consider that some phases might have had more than one attempted tackle in them if a player was able to break a tackle or two, so the percentage of phases where possession was kicked away may have been even higher.

We know this is just one match, and may not be representative in a lot of ways. But it was also probably the most-watched rugby union match ever. And for every three times a team picked up the ball to play with it, they kicked it away once.

The ELVs, of course, have the convenient alibi of not being at the scene because their global implementation came several months later.

Armchair Playmaker suspects that if you see a side kick away possession a lot in a rugby union match, it has less to do with the ELVs and more to do with the oft-repeated statement, “The contest for possession of the ball is one of rugby’s key
features.” You’ll find that said in a number of places, such as a playing charter document provided by the IRB. When possession is constantly at risk, territory is at a premium. Kicking is a quick way to gain territory. Seems simple to us. And rugby union still seems okay to us as well.

If rugby union fans really can’t stand the kicking, though, they can always play and watch a code that where we usually only see a kick every six tackles. But wait: We also see people saying the ELVs have made rugby union too much like rugby league.

o the ELVs make people kick too much possession away and they make rugby union like rugby league, a sport where people don’t need to kick as much possession away because there is less ongoing contest for posession? There’s just no pleasing some folks.

The IRB will make a final decision on the ELVs in July. In the meantime, have a look at the video below if you want another chance to see what could be causing such chaos in so many disparate ways–and all at once: