WITH the shake of the head, it used to be said, there's too much dirty play in rugby.

Well, there still is, but there's more in football.

And, if you need convincing, all you have to do is flick on your TV to the channel showing the Rugby World Cup matches, now being televised almost daily from France, and the evidence will be there in high-definition.

OK, maybe it is too sweeping a statement.

There have been some dirty, rotten scoundrels at the World Cup. But, basically, rugby players have remained the sport's true gentlemen.

Sure, because they're big men, they love to rumble. But it's the way they rumble that makes them special.

There's also no denying, at the World Cup, there have been some rogue elephants. Then again, you get them in every sport.

But, in rugby, it's not so much the rough play but the feelings behind it, that count. Indeed, there is an unwritten law among players about what is admissible and what is not.

Most people would excuse a blow struck in anger when an opponent commits an offence like jersey-tugging - or, in the case of Zinedine Zidane, an insult thrown in the face.

But few have the stomach for foul play committed for its own sake and in cold blood. Sadly, we're seeing more and more of this on the football pitch.

Footballers are losing their temper more easily. Their reactions have become more violent. Their language more vile. They are on a shorter fuse.

And they're willing to take their anger out on anybody - fan in the stands, opponent, referee and team-mate.

Flashback to Eric Cantona's kung-fu kick at a Crystal Palace fan way back in 1995.

What about El-Hadji Diouf launching that spittle attack on Portsmouth's Arjan de Zeeuw.

Remember that ugly incident in 2005, when the club president of a Moldovan team, incensed by a referee's decision, drove his jeep onto the pitch and, in Three Stooges-style, chased the ref, threatening to run him down?

Or how about the incident last month, when West Ham team-mates Gabriel Agbonlahor and Marlon Harewood were involved in a verbal spat right there on the pitch?

And Wayne Rooney? We've lost count with him, haven't we?

Why all this havoc has crept into the game is open to debate. Perhaps it's just the violence of the times. Perhaps it's the 'win at all costs' mentality. After all, losing has become the ultimate disgrace.

Losing the ball, ditto.

But then, why the difference between footballers and rugby players?

If you'd noticed, the rugby players are genuinely contrite when hauled up by the referee.

We know. They fear the '10-yard' rule - which penalises the team if there is any back-talk. But, even then, they will stand in front of the ref like a schoolboy being disciplined by a teacher.

EXPLETIVES

Their answers are staccato. It's 'yes sir, no sir' to all his questions, advice and admonitions. No glaring, no spitting, no middle finger, no throwing jersey on the ground, no mumbling expletives when shown the yellow card.

And, like in the case of John Terry during Chelsea's match against Manchester United last month, no trying to snatch the red card from out of the hand of the referee.

When rugby players at the World Cup appeal a decision, it's done in a 'civilised' way. Calm and rational.

Look at their demeanour. The big All Black, the burly Springbok; they're not merely subdued, but reverent.

Footballers? Their appeals border on threats. They rant. Their eyes bulge from their sockets. They froth at the mouth like some rabid dog. And, man, can they spit.

Why? What makes them so different?

Confrontation in sport is the contest, some say. One man versus another. One team versus another. One man, one team versus the referee.

Welcome to the world of football.

Now, welcome to the world of the professional footballer. Or, men behaving badly.

He with the platinum card, mansion in the country, cars in the garage and so much money that he needs a personal accountant to balance his books.

Introducing football's delinquents: The players.

Not so long ago, hooliganism in football used to be confined to the louts and the ruffians in the stands.

The yobs - as they're called in England - hurled abuse at the visiting team, spat into the wind and peed on the ankles of the guy in front of them.

We made the sign of the cross and said they were, essentially, the failures of society.

All breaches of the peace were the sickness of the spectator.

ROGUE

They're still around; forever will be. But, now, they must fight for space in the rogue's gallery with the players.

Today's yobs and louts are dressed alike. They call it team jerseys. It could well be called gang-wear.

If they're not fighting among themselves, using feet, fists, elbows and any other movable part of one's anatomy, they're fighting authority.

The referees, that is. The very men who are placed on the battlefield to act as arbiter and lawman.

Granted, many of these 'umpires' deserve to be tarred and feathered, then hanged by their thumbs in the town square - to be whistled and jeered at by the fans.

But just because the guy's an idiot, that doesn't give the players licence to shoot the sheriff.

Yet, in football, they persist.

There's rampant dissent - and it has become disgustingly fashionable.

Today in France, where the Rugby World Cup's being contested, no team or player has been caught on a drunken binge. They have not bashed up their hotel room, had a wardrobe malfunction or defiled any French maiden.

They have been, well, perfect ambassadors for their countries.

Why can't footballers act more like rugby players?

Maybe then - and once and for all - people will stop harping on that old aphorism: 'Rugby is a hooligan's sport played by gentlemen, while football's a gentleman's sport played by hooligans.'