OK, I got your attention.

Bet you though this was a carp NSFW DBD . . .

WRONG!  It's about the Pussies in Palo Alto.

In honor of Cal Rugby's National Semifinal appearance vs. Army today at 7 p.m. at the Furd, I decided to look back at Stanfurd Rugby's shameful forfeit of 2001.  I'm sure most of you diehard Cal fans are aware of this, but here's the rundown of the March 2001 events from the Daily Cal:

In a bizarre turn of events for one of Cal's oldest and most legendary sports events, the Stanford rugby team has forfeited its April 7 game against the Bears, citing injury and the team's inability to challenge Cal's squad.

"Cal and others have pointed out that the fear of losing should not be an excuse for a forfeit," Stanford coach Franck Boivert wrote in an e-mail to both rugby programs obtained by The Daily Californian. "Stanford has no fear of losing versus Cal, as they have done so every year but one for the last 20 years. They are, however, very afraid to get injured and indeed fear for their safety."

An interesting series of emails betwen the coaches is available here.  Some interesting tidbits follow.

From the Furd head coach:

Taking the field against Cal this year would make a mockery out of the so-called "Big Game". The Stanford Rugby players have too much respect for the tradition and their predecessors from Stanford and Cal to ridicule this tradition. When there is a rivalry both rivals are on a similar level of competitiveness. When a feather weight is to fight a heavy weight, there is no rivalry, it is a farce, just like if a VW Bug was to race against a "Formula 1" car. Stanford playing Cal in rugby has reached this farcical stage, and Stanford Rugby wants to be no part of a farce.

Cal has offered to "dilute" their team in order to make the game competitive. This proposal has provoked much controversy and several sources very close to the Cal team pointed out that it would make no difference as the Cal second team may be the second best team in the Nation. Cal has also offered to look at this game as a learning experience. The Stanford players see no learning in being physically overrun and outmatched by a huge team, and views it more as a miserable afternoon.

Cal and others have pointed out that the fear of losing should not be an excuse for a forfeit. Stanford has no fear of losing versus Cal as they have done so every year but one for the last 20 years. They are, however, very afraid to get injured and indeed fear for their safety. The Stanford Rugby players are all recreational athletes and the injury toll they had to pay this season is just too much.

So what about the future of the rivalry between Stanford and Cal? I am afraid the two programs are going in two different directions. Cal has professionalised their organization to a point of excellence similar to other varsity sports college programs. Stanford is still a Rugby club for students.

The answer is that in fact Cal is not in the same league. There is no parity between the programs, and not between Stanford and Cal. Who would imagine a college sport like football where one team has varsity status and basically recruits the best players and other teams in their league would be just club sports who recruits through flyers on their own campus? Every body would laugh at that, and would not take it seriously. Well this is exactly the situation in College Rugby. In Ice Hockey, Lacrosse, college championship is divided in club sports championship and varsity championship out of fairness; it will have to be the same in Rugby.

The question of the future of the Cal- Stanford game still remains. Maybe some year Stanford will have a team physically strong enough to challenge Cal, or may be one-day Rugby will be again a sport for the students.

To say the least, Cal legendary Coach Jack Clark was pissed:

As I have shared previously, my personal disappointment is immense. To cancel a match that has been played through the Great Depression and World Wars is a consequential decision. This unease must also be felt in the Stanford student body, alumni and athletic administration. We were hopeful that respect for this tradition would prevail in your Rugby Foundation meeting of the 10th of March, but are understanding of their position. How can you demand that a team contest a match, if the team doesn't want to? I'm sure it is a position that these proud individuals could never have contemplated.

We are similarly non-judgmental towards your players who were asked to vote on honoring this fixture. I can only imagine the confusion of those team members who desired to play. As custodians of this tradition, our approaches differ. I would have regarded the players' uncertainties in honoring this match as a significant coaching opportunity. But again, as stated in my earlier correspondence, I believe that coaching is a medium for life's lessons, not merely an exercise in winning and losing.

We do however take great umbrage at the content of your letter of forfeit. To suggest that your forfeiture of this match is in any manner helpful to the tradition, safety related, prudent or respectful is disingenuous. I found this to be a pathetic 'spin job'. I am in awe of your ability to continually lower the setting of the bar for Stanford rugby, without being challenged. To repeatedly insist that there are insurmountable structural advantages between our programs is a ridiculous overstatement. You have made an unpleasant habit of falsely detailing Cal's rugby advantages over Stanford. Naturally, we are proud that our players receive a varsity letter as the symbol of the 'Big C' is prestigious, but it is only symbolic. The similarities between our programs that you refuse to witness are far more essential. Neither program offers rugby scholarships or rugby specific financial aid of any type. Both institutions have lofty admissions requirements. We both likewise enjoy long successful histories, loyal generous alumni support, meaningful on campus support, good facilities and a paid coaching position.

Lastly, I found your closing comment concerning rugby one day being "again a sport for the students" insulting to the very ethos of sport. How dare you not compete and belittle the accomplishments of those who do.

Is there any other name for Stanford's cowardly actions othern than the P word?  I don't think so.  But what do you expect from the school that forfeited the first ever Rose Bowl Game in the third quarter against Michigan, because it was getting its ass kicked?  This forfeit was such an embarrassment that the Rose Bowl committee (then it was called the Tournament of Roses game) decided to cancel all football games until 1916, and to instead entertain the crowds with CHARIOT RACING!  Can you imagine, Stanfurd almost ruined the Rose Bowl for everyone (and when I say everyone I mean everyone in the Pac 10/Big 10 except for Cal).

But at least this forfeit gives us something other than The Play to use when we easily want to shut up an annoying Furd fan.  So, with that in mind, HOORAY FOR PUSSIES!