wait... you're quitting?!

i am a scotland rugby fan, in good times or bad (which, to be fair, there are far more of the latter). 

we played the auld enemy on saturday in the six nations tournament.  we should have won.  instead, we gave the game away.  it was quite sad to watch.  moments of sheer brilliance followed by moments of utter incompetence.  england didn't win;  we lost.  simple as. 

the biggest blow, sure, was probably the try scored thanks to a botched clearing kick (i'm not naming any names here...).  that was five points, gifted away (not to mention the following conversion).  honestly, yes.  that was bad. 

but that was not, by a long shot, the only problem with our game.  we couldn't hold on to the ball.  we gave away silly penalties.  we simply did not capitalise on our (very good) opportunities.  in the end, i wasn't even all that bothered by the loss (not like in the world cup) because we did it to ourselves. 

it wasn't just the fault of one person, no matter how rough a game he had. 

you wouldn't know that from the reaction of fans, who reportedly were so bad that said player had to have a police escort in order to safely leave murrayfield.  and on social media right across the board, so-called fans have been calling for his head-- for him to resign, be fired, or (in some extreme cases) be executed. 

i mean, really, people.  what good is it to blame one person who had a spectacularly bad day, to be sure, when there were another fourteen people on the pitch who did not do much to contribute to a win, to be fair?  it is a team sport, and the team let the nation down-- not just that one man.  but we have to have a scapegoat, don't we?  we always have to look for someone to blame.  yes, it was a devastating loss considering we had every reason to expect to win... but you can't blame one man.  not for the entire thing, anyway. especially when he has also done a lot of good for our side, bringing us points (and occasionally even winning points) and winning man of the match more times than any other current player.  hold him accountable for his mistakes of saturday, of course-- but don't lay the entire fault on him.  it wasn't all him. 

i've been bothered by the responses of *fans* to this.  i have not heard such horrible things said about one man in my time of following scottish rugby (which, granted, has only been a few years now).  i've been really disappointed by that, to be honest.  bad form, scottish nation! 

and today, what is the first thing i see when i get online?  headlines all over my homepage, that said player has announced his retirement from international rugby, effective immediately.  in other words, he quit. 

quit?!  really?!?

unbelievable.  yes, you had a bad game.  yes, the fans are very vocal in their (let's call it what it is) fury and hatred.  but this does not sound like a reasoned and well-thought out response.  this sounds like a gut-reaction from a coward.  i do not think you are a coward;  why are you acting like one?  to quit after the first game in a six-game tournament, because you had a (really, really) bad match?  to leave your team like that?  sure, maybe you shouldn't start the next week.  and no one would blame you if you retired at the end of the six nations.  but... to just up and desert like this? 

no.  i'm even more unhappy about this than i was about the result on saturday.  this is just not on, sir.  bad form! 

but that's not what the rule says

so i'm watching this show called dancing on ice.  it's one of those 'pair a celebrity with a professional and make them compete against a bunch of other celebrities, getting scored by judges who may or may not know what they are talking about, and let the public decides who goes or stays,' and is, you probably figured out, based around ice dancing.  i have generally enjoyed it in the past, but i'm not so thrilled with some of the format changes that have been made recently.  that's neither here nor there for the point of this post, however. 

it goes like this, usually:  each couple skates.  the judges score them.  the public votes.  the two couples with the lowest public votes have to skate again.  the judges decide between them who goes and who stays.  the rule in the skate-off is this:  previous performances are forgotten;  skaters are judged solely on the skate-off itself.  solely. on. the skate-off. 

except this past week, that didn't seem to happen.  and it really made me angry, despite the fact that the celeb who got booted out was, actually, the worst skater so far in the competition.

he hadn't really put in the hours to even work on his basic skating skills, and was pretty wobbly on his feet compared to everyone else.  he also hadn't done very much to endear himself to the voting public, coming off as a bit of a whiner, and arrogant to boot.  undeservedly arrogant, on this show, anyway.  so it wasn't surprising he was in the skate-off;  it was surprising it had taken a few weeks for him to end up there.  i was sure, before they skated, that he'd be going home.  if he didn't get saved by the public, there was no way he was going to be staying.  that's what i thought. 

and then, they skated.  he's not the best skater, as i've said, but he skated his routine even better than he had in the first show-- no wobbles, hit all his (limited) tricks, really sold it.  i was impressed.  still, the other woman up against him was a far better skater.  i was happy for him that he would, at least, go out with a good performance. 

and then she skated.  and messed it up.  she didn't fall, but she wobbled--a lot-- and missed her steps--a lot-- and just generally made a hash of it.  i think everyone was surprised, and the coaches and hosts and all (i think) thought she had just blown her own chances of staying in-- because you are judged solely on that performance.  and although she's the better skater over-all, she did not put in the better performance just then. 

so they go to the judges, and only one of them (the head judge, who actually does know what he's talking about) saved him.  the other two?  obviously were not judging on the performance just given but on the overall potential and talent of the skaters.  WHICH IS NOT THE RULE.

i was furious.  i didn't want him to stay in before that, because he's not that good and he's a bit annoying-- but after their skate-off performances, he DESERVED to stay in.  because he pulled it out, and she didn't. 

what's the point of having rules if you are just going to vote for who you like?  i used to think this way of doing it, to let the judges have the final say on who went home and who stayed in, was more fair than leaving it up to the public.  now?  obviously i was wrong about that.