League V Union

Diamondmaker

Just watching Tuqiri and Sailor on a panel discussing both codes.

Both being pretty high profile Wallabies and State of origin reps so well placed to discuss it. SOme interesting and surprising opionons expressed by them.

Wonder what other peoples views. Do we have enough exposure to it at home to have any opinion?

I quite like the game but find the lack of rucks infuriating, knowing that the ball almost certainly wont be turned over.
Every 4th or 5th tackle the ball will be kicked and then it all starts again as the FB fields and breaks.
The 1st tackle is always a big front rower running hard and direct and being tackled by 3 or 4.

On the up side the hits are huge! The shoulder charge is legal ( good for viewinig ) and with the extra space the 13 man code affords, you see a lot of running. Forwards and backs alike. Scores are higher.

The standard of kicking is very poor I feel by comparison to UNion as a whole.

Any one else with any thoughts?

Amz

I think we probably don't see enough up here. I've watched UK and Australian league and I much prefer Aussie Rugby League, it just offers more of a spectacle.

I like the fact that there's a lot of running and not 80 minutes of aerial bombardment from kickers. The kicking is poor when comapred to union, but then they're generally looking for a different outcome to a kick in Union.

I still prefer Union, but I'm definitely not as Anti rugby league as I was a few years back before i'd ever really watched it.

puntosporting

I personnaly find league boring and repetitive!
The game is played so flat there seems to be little or no tactic crash ball offload crashball offload its a very limited for viewing in my mind at least!
Maybe i just dont get it?

Stev_o

I dont mind League but what i hate more then anything and its creepy into Union aswell is the dependency on TMO. I sometimes watch super league but have to turn it off as every try HAS to be checked by the TMO which does my head in its just lazy refereeing either give the try or not depending on what you think unless it looks completely dodgy dont go to the TMO.

toomevara

love league, much prefer it to union....for a whole host of reasons, but for me its a more honest, purer version of the game...*screams, runs for cover*....

GreenHell

Oh you can't be sayin that!

Watched a few of the english teams - Boring

Apparently the austrialian teams put on a better show.

Union is the only way to go

Luckycharm

Can't stand Superleague - tackle, wiggle 5 times then kick NRL can be great to watch as they tend to pass the ball around a bit more and alot more skills/quicker game.

I went to my first ever RL game in OZ in March, it was OK, to be honest most of it was one out rugby one big guy running into 3 guys and then a kick at the end. Not great atmosphere at the game either. It was good that they had to have a result and if there was a draw they played extra time first team to score won.

marco_polo

Meh league is ok, nothing against it really and I have been known to watch the odd game of it myself on TV.

toomevara

Diamondmaker wrote: »

The standard of kicking is very poor I feel by comparison to UNion as a whole.

Any one else with any thoughts?

You're not comparing like with like I reckon. Kicking in league is, no pun intended a whole different ball game to union....It's all about forty-twentys, grubbers/overheads on 4th-5th plays, GLDO's and the all important defensive kick on the last tackle...It's just a different philosophy to the one used in union.

Guys like St Helens' sean Long, Leeds' Danny Maguire and Warrington's Lee Briers are absolute masters of the kicking game and its a crucial aspect of any Rugby league teams arsenal. Was at Headingley last weekend to see Leeds beaten by St Helens in a superb game of league and for me the difference between the two was the tactical excellence of Sean Long's kicking.

You also need to remember that in league halfs generally get alot less time on the ball than their union counterparts with big loose forwards bearing down on them at every play the ball. You also tend to find that loosies and hookers can kick very well despite the fact that they're forwards....League scrum halfs also kick, imo, way better than their union colleagues.

suppafly

I think rugby is alright. I won't watch it all the time thoug as I find it a bit repetitive. They take all their tackles and then kick the ball. Some nice big hits though. Still prefer Union though. More going and less predictable

masseyno9

Having played both, they are very very different. League is much faster, harder hitting, played on the gain line.
Because the defence is back 10m from every tackle there is no real need for significant depth to a back line. This would be way easier to explain with pictures! Basically, the attacking side always has 10m into which to run, where as in union, you have the length of a ruck (sweet fanny adams really) so depth is essential to give players time on the ball. Having said that, Decoy runners etc and long deep passes are often the key that unlocks defences. Harder hits are a result of less strict rules on what constitutes a tackle. As someone mentioned above, shoulder charge is legal (not in Irish conference, unsure about Elite league) Shoulder to shoulder hits are encouraged, so you can wrap the ball and prevent an offload.

Union is a lot more technical with rucks, mauls, etc. Body positions, rucking, controlling the ball on the ground and placing after a tackle are all substitutes for the simple play the ball motion in league. Lineouts and scrums are much more important. Kicking is used more tactically, rather than just at the end of a set.

I personally view union as a more complex game, whereas league would be the raw version. For anyone who has seen tommy tiernan's first dvd (the best one!) league would be the Declan Moffatt of the rugby world. Thats not to say there aren't skills in league, there are, but it seems there are more complex and diverse skill sets to be learned to play union.

In terms of watching on tv. League is great, but i lose interest at times because i haven't a clue who's playing, or don't care who wins. With union, even if i don't care what the result is, i'll still usually know a couple of the players so enjoy it anyway.

just my 2c. Both have their merits, which I suppose is why our seasons over here are offset - union in winter and league in summer.

Worrytahs

I love both although I dont bother much with British RL as I've no real affinity to any of the teams involved. Played similar positions in both codes (halfback). Different sports though as already pointed out.

Stev_o

Stuff like this http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=X2IqiFlc5LA still amazes me man its just jaw dropping

Sangre

Stev_o wrote: »

Stuff like this http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=X2IqiFlc5LA still amazes me man its just jaw dropping

Surely that was a knock on.

Steffano2002

Sangre wrote: »

Surely that was a knock on.

Perfectly valid try AFAIC!

I can't watch Rugby Union. I find it way too repetitive. Pass - tackle. Pass - tackle. Pass - tackle. Pass - tackle. Pass - tackle. Pass - kick. Start over... *Yawn*

I much prefer Rugby Union! Although watching teams like Munster pick & go for 30 minutes makes me want to start watching curling*...



*Little dig at you fookers for beating us!

toomevara

Steffano2002 wrote: »

Perfectly valid try AFAIC!

I can't watch Rugby Union. I find it way too repetitive. Pass - tackle. Pass - tackle. Pass - tackle. Pass - tackle. Pass - tackle. Pass - kick. Start over... *Yawn*

*Little dig at you fookers for beating us!

Yes totally agree....been watching S14 again?:p (sorry v. unchristian of me, know what you meant, just being facetious...yet again).

You should be getting behind the Catalans Dragons steffano, playing some beautiful rugby in this years super league....third in the table and just trolleyed Warrington last weekend....and a frenchman, Tomas Bosc is one of the up and coming stars of the NH game....seen him play on a number of occasions and they guy is going to be huge.....

Also France play england tonight in an RL international in toulouse, your old stomping ground....

Worrytahs

Sangre wrote: »

Surely that was a knock on.

Why? He was attempting to gather ball in one action. Best try in either code in a long time in my opinion.

Here's one I love chucking in:

Quinnell to Edwards (1973) was forward.
Discuss

Snickers Man

Rugby League is the bastard war child of a 19th century British class struggle and an early 20th century Australian identity crisis.

Let's face it, League has never made any real headway in any other country.

The issue of payments to players from modest backgrounds (who couldn't really afford the time off work to commit to their game) was what caused the split of the large working class clubs of Yorkshire and Lancashire from the rest of the rugby union in the 1890s. And the identification of Union with effete upper class snobs and of League with honest salt of the earth working men continued to fuel the bitterness between both codes until Union went professional in 1995.

In Australia, there was also a working class League/middle class Union split but in that laid-back more egalatarian society that wasn't such an issue. It became a big issue during the first world war when the fact that many of the working class league players were of Irish origin contrasted with the fact that most of the Union players were of middle class "British" origin and still identified strongly with the Mother Country.

The "British" were stoic in their support of Queen and Mother Country during WWI; the "Irish" were a little more sceptical. Whereas the main Rugby Union competitions in Australia were shelved for the duration of the war so that the menfolk could go off to Gallipoli to defend the empire, League kept its competitions going. This caused no end of bitterness and division between supporters of the two codes and is at the root of such hostility as exists between the codes in Australia to this day.

In Ireland we had our own particular sporting/cultural clashes between "Irish" games controlled by the GAA and "Foreign and fantastic sports" that were deemed inappropriate for true Irish people to play. So we never got sucked into the worst excesses of the League/Union culture wars.

All of which brings me to say that in terms of variety, strategy, skill, intelligence and just downright fun Union is by far the better game. I think it is vital, though, that League continues as a separate game in its own right. That way we can resist the machinations of the Australians to try and turn Union into League by supporting every hare-brained modification of the laws to denude Union of things like scrums, rucks and mauls which give it its distinctive character.

toomevara

Snickers Man wrote: »

Rugby League is the bastard war child of a 19th century British class struggle and an early 20th century Australian identity crisis.

Let's face it, League has never made any real headway in any other country.

The issue of payments to players from modest backgrounds (who couldn't really afford the time off work to commit to their game) was what caused the split of the large working class clubs of Yorkshire and Lancashire from the rest of the rugby union in the 1890s. And the identification of Union with effete upper class snobs and of League with honest salt of the earth working men continued to fuel the bitterness between both codes until Union went professional in 1995.

In Australia, there was also a working class League/middle class Union split but in that laid-back more egalatarian society that wasn't such an issue. It became a big issue during the first world war when the fact that many of the working class league players were of Irish origin contrasted with the fact that most of the Union players were of middle class "British" origin and still identified strongly with the Mother Country.

The "British" were stoic in their support of Queen and Mother Country during WWI; the "Irish" were a little more sceptical. Whereas the main Rugby Union competitions in Australia were shelved for the duration of the war so that the menfolk could go off to Gallipoli to defend the empire, League kept its competitions going. This caused no end of bitterness and division between supporters of the two codes and is at the root of such hostility as exists between the codes in Australia to this day.

In Ireland we had our own particular sporting/cultural clashes between "Irish" games controlled by the GAA and "Foreign and fantastic sports" that were deemed inappropriate for true Irish people to play. So we never got sucked into the worst excesses of the League/Union culture wars.

All of which brings me to say that in terms of variety, strategy, skill, intelligence and just downright fun Union is by far the better game. I think it is vital, though, that League continues as a separate game in its own right. That way we can resist the machinations of the Australians to try and turn Union into League by supporting every hare-brained modification of the laws to denude Union of things like scrums, rucks and mauls which give it its distinctive character.

LOL, same old saw again Snickers, littered with the same inaccuracies and pseudo class warrior guff.....your 'historical' analysis also leaves alot to be desired...

Snickers Man

Steffano2002 wrote: »

I much prefer Rugby Union! Although watching teams like Munster pick & go for 30 minutes makes me want to start watching curling*...



*Little dig at you fookers for beating us!

Speaking as someone who was at that final wearing a Toulouse shirt (something of a babe magnet among Munster women I have to say:) ) Steffano I feel I have to point out that halfway through the match I sent a text to a Munster mate saying "Toulouse are playing Munster rugby; Munster are playing like Toulouse. What's going on?"

Munster tried to attack with their backs; Toulouse, while camped in the Munster half for the first half hour, just put up Garryowens.

It's not enough to say you are the more attractive team just because you have the more adventurous hairstyles (yes, Heymans. I'm talking about you) You have to go and show it. And apart from one speedy kick and chase attack by Heymans, Toulouse didn't on the day.

JWAD

Snickers Man wrote: »

Rugby League is the bastard war child of a 19th century British class struggle and an early 20th century Australian identity crisis.

Let's face it, League has never made any real headway in any other country.

The issue of payments to players from modest backgrounds (who couldn't really afford the time off work to commit to their game) was what caused the split of the large working class clubs of Yorkshire and Lancashire from the rest of the rugby union in the 1890s. And the identification of Union with effete upper class snobs and of League with honest salt of the earth working men continued to fuel the bitterness between both codes until Union went professional in 1995.

In Australia, there was also a working class League/middle class Union split but in that laid-back more egalatarian society that wasn't such an issue. It became a big issue during the first world war when the fact that many of the working class league players were of Irish origin contrasted with the fact that most of the Union players were of middle class "British" origin and still identified strongly with the Mother Country.

The "British" were stoic in their support of Queen and Mother Country during WWI; the "Irish" were a little more sceptical. Whereas the main Rugby Union competitions in Australia were shelved for the duration of the war so that the menfolk could go off to Gallipoli to defend the empire, League kept its competitions going. This caused no end of bitterness and division between supporters of the two codes and is at the root of such hostility as exists between the codes in Australia to this day

Utter tosh and a blatant convenient rewriting of history with some factually incorrect claims. Why does the playerbase for RU in Aussie hail mainly from private school backgrounds? As the game goes as it has gone this century that playerbase has depleted (as in Scotland where they experience a similar problem or Argentina, a union which is financially effed and where players have to earn their crust abroad), the ARU turns to RL players to bolster its pool, paying way over the odds and in turn, contributing to its current fiscal problems.

Snickers Man wrote: »

In Ireland we had our own particular sporting/cultural clashes between "Irish" games controlled by the GAA and "Foreign and fantastic sports" that were deemed inappropriate for true Irish people to play. So we never got sucked into the worst excesses of the League/Union culture wars

There was never a Rugby Union v Rugby League clash here because Rugby League was not played by the British Armed forces at the time they were here. Why does Rugby Union have a reputation of being a 'toffs' sport here. Admittedly this is changing over the last five to eight years but RU's reputation exceeds it here
Rugby Union is a 'colonial' sport outside the UK. Rugby League isn't. Simply because colonists didn't play it.

Snickers Man wrote: »

All of which brings me to say that in terms of variety, strategy, skill, intelligence and just downright fun Union is by far the better game. I think it is vital, though, that League continues as a separate game in its own right. That way we can resist the machinations of the Australians to try and turn Union into League by supporting every hare-brained modification of the laws to denude Union of things like scrums, rucks and mauls which give it its distinctive character.

:rolleyes:
1) The ELVs are not "Aussie driven". Aussies in the ARU might support them but they are an IRB initiative and Australia do not have the majority vote on IRB policy.
2) Exactly how do these ELVs "denude" RU of scrums and rucks and turn the game into RL? They are certainly affecting the maul (a ELV I do not support) but there are more scrums and rucks are more channelled with players not going through the gate being pinged by straight-arm sanctions (Its no concidence that three Tri Nations teams murdered opposition at rucks this summer).
If you want to see RU turned into RL, see the Wallabies RWC 1999 campaign, England's 2003 RWC campaign and Wales' Grand Slam this year. Or even (and I'm not singling them out here) some of Munster's ERC tactics this year, most notably the 30-odd phase of tedious 2mm gains in order to run the clock down.
Why do you think the crowd at an RU game applauds a team when they opt for linout penalty instead of taking yet another three-pointer?

Resting on one's laurels and opting for a divisive viewpoint in us-and-them fashion does sweet fa for the sport. The state of the game in certain countries, on top of a poor RWC last autumn (remember the reactions following the comp?), requires action to be taken and that is what the IRB are doing. What you want is either a further split into a hemispherical code or the game to lose whatever momentum it has gained in the past 13 years.

toomevara

JWAD wrote: »

There was never a Rugby Union v Rugby League clash here because Rugby League was not played by the British Armed forces at the time they were here. Why does Rugby Union have a reputation of being a 'toffs' sport here. Admittedly this is changing over the last five to eight years but RU's reputation exceeds it here
Rugby Union is a 'colonial' sport outside the UK. Rugby League isn't. Simply because colonists didn't play it.

.

Agree completely.

Once the League V Union thing is trotted out its never long before some self appointed 'historian' with an ideological/class war axe to grind raises his head above the pararpet....

The league v union debate always becomes enmeshed in this cod socio-political nonsense rather than, as I've repeated ad nauseum on here over the years, whether people actually like/dislike the game itself.

If you want to get all socio-anthropological about it (and I'm exceedingly bored at the minute, so why the hell not) can anyone explain to me the enduring appeal of rugby union to dyed-in-the-wool, card carrying right wing fascists everywhere....

Ceaucescu (a vile despot) loved it, thats why Romanian rugby union enjoyed a brief spell in the limelight. The Argentinian generals, who when they weren't 'disappearing' people or chucking folk out of helicopters to their deaths liked nothing beter than a game of rugby, and to this day its an incrediby eitist sport in Argentina.

Petain loved union and saw too it that French RL was disgracefully destroyed by the nazi lickspittle Vichy regime (it was as popular as,if not more so than, union in pre wwII France)....Mosely and his loons adored it and the car park in twickers on international day is like the annual UKIP party conference...

Lets face it theres nothing the posho, right wing lot love more than a bit of RU.....and of course in dear old ireland, and pretty much every where else its played, it is the team sport of privelige and entitlement...

JWAD

toomevara wrote: »

Once the League V Union thing is trotted out its never long before some self appointed 'historian' with an ideological/class war axe to grind raises his head above the pararpet....

Kind of agree. Some people like sports for the sports that they are. Some like the identity they perceive it brings sadly. This applies to supporters of both codes of rugby.
I wish people would just discuss the merits of the games themselves whether or not Clive of India or Jethro Bottomthorpe liked them.

toomevara

JWAD wrote: »

I wish people would just discuss the merits of the games themselves whether or not Clive of India or Jethro Bottomthorpe liked them.

My point precisely, love league/union or hate it as is your wont, but leave out the half-baked ideological polemic...

Steffano2002

Snickers Man wrote: »

Speaking as someone who was at that final wearing a Toulouse shirt (something of a babe magnet among Munster women I have to say:) ) Steffano I feel I have to point out that halfway through the match I sent a text to a Munster mate saying "Toulouse are playing Munster rugby; Munster are playing like Toulouse. What's going on?"

Munster tried to attack with their backs; Toulouse, while camped in the Munster half for the first half hour, just put up Garryowens.

It's not enough to say you are the more attractive team just because you have the more adventurous hairstyles (yes, Heymans. I'm talking about you) You have to go and show it. And apart from one speedy kick and chase attack by Heymans, Toulouse didn't on the day.

Don't worry Snickers Man, I agree with you fully! We were woeful on the day and deserved Toulouse*! And Pelous deserves to get shot!

However, in general, I'd rather watch Toulouse play!



*It's Friday...

Snickers Man

Ok JWAD and Toomevara. I will admit, I was generalising and when you generalise, you gloss over some contradictions and anomalies but what I said is GENERALLY true.

And the main conclusion I draw is that both in England and Australia there are social and cultural reasons for the hostility between League and Union that go beyond preference for the laws and tactics of one game over another. Do you deny that?

In Ireland we don't have the same cultural division between League and Union. It is irrelevant to us. We can make our choices based on what we think of each game per se.

In my case I dislike the game of League. I dislike its patterns, its monotony, its unidimensional character. But if I were Australian, I would be more in tune politically with the attitude generally associated with Leaguees. But for sport, I would prefer Union.

So does the rest of the world. Why was League so poor at spreading itself? It could offer paid employment to its players, unlike Union. It is a supposedly simpler game and therefore in theory, easier to market to a general audience. It has had (in the last years before Union went pro) the marketing muscle of Rupert Murdoch behind it. It could have invested in spreading the game much better than it did. Is it because the game is just basically unattractive?

I know what I think.

Snickers Man

JWAD wrote: »

:rolleyes:
1) The ELVs are not "Aussie driven". Aussies in the ARU might support them but they are an IRB initiative and Australia do not have the majority vote on IRB policy.

It was never my case that the Australians initiated the ELVs. If you read my post the word I used was "support". Which you concede is true. In general.

JWAD wrote:

2) Exactly how do these ELVs "denude" RU of scrums and rucks and turn the game into RL? They are certainly affecting the maul (a ELV I do not support) but there are more scrums and rucks are more channelled with players not going through the gate being pinged by straight-arm sanctions (Its no concidence that three Tri Nations teams murdered opposition at rucks this summer).

Er. Those tests were played under existing laws.

Now, you ask how ELVs will turn the game to League. First, there are many different ELVs and in fact three subsets of them will be in force in various competitions next season. (How daft is that?)

What I object to is the diminution of the contest for possession at the breakdown. This was started by the introduction of use it or lose it laws in 1992/93 which was the major factor in shifting the game from traditional union to something more like league. It meant that there was little advantage to a team committing players to a breakdown so instead they fan out across the pitch, so you get two long lines of players with no space to play in.

IE Rugby League.

Eventually, tacticians worked out ways to tie up forwards to give space to backs to play in. TActics like the Rolling Maul, a traditional tool updated for current ground rules. Cue howls of protest from places like Australia where players would rather fanny about in the backline than get in among the forwards and do what it takes to stop a rolling maul from rolling. After which, the attacking side has to use the ball quickly or lose it.

"you can't defend a rolling maul," they bleat. "Please allow us to pull it down"

NO. NO. NO.

Also the downgrading of scrum offences to short arm penalties will gradually and inevitably (it may not have happened yet) grant a cheat's charter to teams who do not want to contest at scrum time and do not want to include scrummaging specialists on their teams. If you foul at the scrum what happens?

Differential penalty. Opposition can tap and go, with two lines strung across the pitch or it can opt for another scrum. So you foul again and give them the same choice. That's what will inevitably happen as people get wise.

The ELV which proposes to lift number restrictions in the lineout will again give rise to the "two thin lines" across the pitch, a traditional league layout as opposed to a Union one in which forwards are concentrated in teh centre with space for the backs to play in.


Some ELVs are good. The 5m back from the scrum rule I like. Moving flags away from the corner is a simple and welcome tweak. Giving greater power to touch judges to police offside and scrum offences is long overdue.

The dispensation on kicking straight into touch if you bring the ball into your 22 is a red herring in my view. But it's a minor change.

JWAD wrote:

If you want to see RU turned into RL, see the Wallabies RWC 1999 campaign, England's 2003 RWC campaign and Wales' Grand Slam this year. Or even (and I'm not singling them out here) some of Munster's ERC tactics this year, most notably the 30-odd phase of tedious 2mm gains in order to run the clock down.

All examples brought in since the use it or lose it laws.

Here's a question for you: When did australia play their most attractive, most exhilirating and most successful rugby?

In my opinion it was during the 1980s with the likes of Campese and the Ellas and a stout supporting cast passing like lightning and running like the wind in the wide open spaces then available.

And what laws did they play under?

Maybe you disagree?

Snickers Man

Steffano2002 wrote: »

in general, I'd rather watch Toulouse play!



*It's Friday...

Moi aussi, mon vieux.

Snickers Man

Worrytahs wrote: »

Why? He was attempting to gather ball in one action. Best try in either code in a long time in my opinion.

There was no knock on but the ball had crossed the dead ball line, albeit in the air. Shouldn't that have been called dead? I think it would have been in Union.

worrytahs wrote:

Here's one I love chucking in:

Quinnell to Edwards (1973) was forward.
Discuss

No discussion at all. It was forward. By a mile. The ref missed it.

What's your point?

JWAD

Snickers Man wrote: »

Er. Those tests were played under existing laws

I know that. And never said otherwise. Aussie and NZ wiped their opposition at the rucks. They were still going in to rucks as if playing the S14s ie. through the gate. What I was pointing out was that the ELVs 'cleaned' up ruck play.

Snickers Man wrote: »

What I object to is the diminution of the contest for possession at the breakdown. This was started by the introduction of use it or lose it laws in 1992/93 which was the major factor in shifting the game from traditional union to something more like league. It meant that there was little advantage to a team committing players to a breakdown so instead they fan out across the pitch, so you get two long lines of players with no space to play in.

IE Rugby League

ie. nothing to do with the ELVs.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Eventually, tacticians worked out ways to tie up forwards to give space to backs to play in. TActics like the Rolling Maul, a traditional tool updated for current ground rules. Cue howls of protest from places like Australia where players would rather fanny about in the backline than get in among the forwards and do what it takes to stop a rolling maul from rolling. After which, the attacking side has to use the ball quickly or lose it

"you can't defend a rolling maul," they bleat. "Please allow us to pull it down"

NO. NO. NO

Read my views on the ELVs concerning the maul made earlier.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Also the downgrading of scrum offences to short arm penalties will gradually and inevitably (it may not have happened yet) grant a cheat's charter to teams who do not want to contest at scrum time and do not want to include scrummaging specialists on their teams. If you foul at the scrum what happens?

Differential penalty. Opposition can tap and go, with two lines strung across the pitch or it can opt for another scrum. So you foul again and give them the same choice. That's what will inevitably happen as people get wise

So you'll just speculate that the scrum is on the way out instead then when in fact it is more prevalent and contested despite your protestations?

Snickers Man wrote: »

The ELV which proposes to lift number restrictions in the lineout will again give rise to the "two thin lines" across the pitch, a traditional league layout as opposed to a Union one in which forwards are concentrated in teh centre with space for the backs to play in

Again, this has been the case under the existing law set.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Here's a question for you: When did australia play their most attractive, most exhilirating and most successful rugby?

In my opinion it was during the 1980s with the likes of Campese and the Ellas and a stout supporting cast passing like lightning and running like the wind in the wide open spaces then available.

And what laws did they play under?

The Wallabies of Mark Ella's time was indeed one of the best rugby union sides I've ever seen.
None of the issues with the game that you see seem to have anything to do with the ELVs. They are a fond look back at times when there were bugger all safety laws and teams had no idea how to defend apart from Aussie and the All Blacks. Your issues are with tactics based on defence. Hardly an ELV issue.
What next? Compulsory smoke break at half time? 'Ban' on professionalism?
Teams made to forget again how to actually form a defensive line?
The reason that an NRL or Origin side scores tries is that they actually know how to break a defensive line. The way people here moan about 'league-style lines', you'd swear there were no tries at all in the sport.

Snickers Man

JWAD wrote: »

Aussie and NZ wiped their opposition at the rucks.

NZ "wiped" Ireland in the rucks fair enough. (they usually do) Australia didn't. Ireland outdid them in possession stakes, despite throwing away several lineouts later in the game.

JWAD wrote:

Your issues are with tactics based on defence. Hardly an ELV issue.

My issue is with the general shape of the game. The ELVs, or at least the significant ones, seem determined to de-emphasise the contest for possession by guaranteeing possession to the attacking team.

Bit like League's "play the ball"

themont85

Much prefer Union for a number of reasons. The vareity of skills, shapes ect that are used far exceeds League. As a spectacle, I can watch Aussie league but can't stand Super League which bores me greatly. I do enjoy playing league a lot more than watching it tbh. Union is still far better though.

komodosp

Much prefer union... The variety emphasis put on physical strength in rucks, mauls, line-outs, as well as the running backs, and tying together with half-backs is very exciting to watch... There's something about (in league) catching a player, putting him to ground, then backing off while he plays on that doesn't seem natural and kind of interrupts (IMHO) the flow of the game. Love seeing a bunch of big guys crashing into a ruck to try and push the opponent players off the ball.

Also the idea of having six (i.e. a limited number of) turns each just seems a bit artificial... same with American rules... (4 turns).

Having said that I will watch and enjoy a match if it's on...

There was no knock on but the ball had crossed the dead ball line, albeit in the air. Shouldn't that have been called dead? I think it would have been in Union.

I don't think it would have... the player and the ball were both in the air, and I believe in Union, this would be considered still in play. I mean TMOs are always looking to see if the player's knee touched the ground in touch before the ball was grounded for whether to award the try, and I remember one American player catching the ball after it had crossed the line by jumping over the line, catching it and throwing it back in while still in the air, and the ball remaining in play. I know I'm talking about the touch line in both cases but I presume the same rules apply to the dead-ball line...

Eoin

Wow - I never thought a thread in the rugby forum would succumb to Godwin's law, but it's happened.

Anyhow - I can completely understand why union players don't like league. Watching some British teams play can be totally soul destroying stuff. Seeing teams from down under play can make it seem like a very different game though. Watching union teams grind out a 9 - 6 win isn't great either though.

I played league over 4 seasons in Ireland, and it is a lot more fun to play than it is to watch. I would definitely recommend it.

Incidentally, one of the great things about league in Ireland is that the divide between the codes that exists in Britain, doesn't exist here (at least among the people who play both codes, as opposed to the pundits in this forum). This may solely be because the seasons don't clash, so union players don't have to choose - but it is still nice to avoid the misplaced "class war" that seems to dominate.

[Jackass]

Stev_o wrote: »

Stuff like this http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=X2IqiFlc5LA still amazes me man its just jaw dropping

That's outrageous, great link, thanks.

Personally much prefer union but have not seen enough of league to say it's useless, but I suppose I just haven't given it much of a chance as I've no connection to it through any teams really.

I've watched the odd games on BBC for cup finals etc., but don't think I've ever watched a game from first minute to last...so I suppose the lack of interest in teams involved, coupled with the style of play just doesn't do it for me.

Although if I thought I'd see a try like the one above every game I'd watch it religiously.

toomevara

eoin_s wrote: »

Wow - I never thought a thread in the rugby forum would succumb to Godwin's law, but it's happened.
.

It hasn't, dont want to be an anorak, but find me an example of the reductio ad hitlerum in this thread...I cant seem to locate one...

gordon_gekko

union is slightly less borring than league

Eoin

toomevara wrote: »

It hasn't, dont want to be an anorak, but find me an example of the reductio ad hitlerum in this thread...I cant seem to locate one...

toomevara wrote: »

If you want to get all socio-anthropological about it (and I'm exceedingly bored at the minute, so why the hell not) can anyone explain to me the enduring appeal of rugby union to dyed-in-the-wool, card carrying right wing fascists everywhere....

^ Close enough for me.

toomevara

eoin_s wrote: »

^ Close enough for me.

Not for me, but thats the wonder of life....

Snickers Man

toomevara wrote: »

Agree completely.

Once the League V Union thing is trotted out its never long before some self appointed 'historian' with an ideological/class war axe to grind raises his head above the pararpet....

The league v union debate always becomes enmeshed in this cod socio-political nonsense rather than, as I've repeated ad nauseum on here over the years, whether people actually like/dislike the game itself.

OK here you are saying that I'm an ideological class warrior who doesn't know the facts of history and bringing irrelevant social commentary to bear on what should be a matter of choice based on ones preferences for a game per se.

toomevara wrote:

If you want to get all socio-anthropological about it (and I'm exceedingly bored at the minute, so why the hell not) can anyone explain to me the enduring appeal of rugby union to dyed-in-the-wool, card carrying right wing fascists everywhere....

Ceaucescu (a vile despot) loved it, thats why Romanian rugby union enjoyed a brief spell in the limelight. The Argentinian generals, who when they weren't 'disappearing' people or chucking folk out of helicopters to their deaths liked nothing beter than a game of rugby, and to this day its an incrediby eitist sport in Argentina.

Petain loved union and saw too it that French RL was disgracefully destroyed by the nazi lickspittle Vichy regime (it was as popular as,if not more so than, union in pre wwII France)....Mosely and his loons adored it and the car park in twickers on international day is like the annual UKIP party conference...

Lets face it theres nothing the posho, right wing lot love more than a bit of RU.....and of course in dear old ireland, and pretty much every where else its played, it is the team sport of privelige and entitlement...

...and here you are getting into the ideological trenches armed with a lot of your own inaccurate, incomplete and biased observations making it quite clear where your personal loyalties lie.

In other words, you're proving me right.

I pointed out in my post that in Ireland we don't have a social factor to the League/Union dispute. We very much have one, or had, in relation to the coexistence of the GAA-run sports with "foreign" or "Garrison" games. So my personal distaste for League is entirely to do with the game. It's one-dimensional, boring, repetitive and predictable.

And my basic point is that without the little bit of venom that the working class/middle class divide in Britain, or the Loyalist/Republican split in Australia brought to it, there is not enough merit in the game itself to see it survive.

Working from home today, I (sneakily) caught the first ten minutes or so of the State of Origin final between NSW and Queensland. Confirmed all my worst prejudices. Repetitive bosh and bash punctuated by handling errors which led to scores. Live from Snoozeville.

Show me one other country where League has taken root. And blaming Marshal Petain for the destruction of League in France is a bit rich. He's been dead for 60 years. Surely a competent professional game could have made some headway against a bunch of amateurs in the interim.

toomevara

Snickers Man wrote: »

...and here you are getting into the ideological trenches armed with a lot of your own inaccurate, incomplete and biased observations making it quite clear where your personal loyalties lie.

In other words, you're proving me right.
.

Dhera, I couldn't be bothered, just ranting on in pseudo political fashion to prove that either side can advance daft historical tripe to justify their respective views....

Love both codes, always have....sorry bout your bad experience re: Origin...should have turned on sky sports last night and caught Catalans V Wakefield..brilliant game...also a french team third in super league and looking like genuine title contenders..they're lovin' league down there in S of France at the minute...

themont85

toomevara wrote: »

Dhera, I couldn't be bothered, just ranting on in pseudo political fashion to prove that either side can advance daft historical tripe to justify their respective views....

Love both codes, always have....sorry bout your bad experience re: Origin...should have turned on sky sports last night and caught Catalans V Wakefield..brilliant game...also a french team third in super league and looking like genuine title contenders..they're lovin' league down there in S of France at the minute...

I was in Perpingon at Easter and have did see a few jerseys for the Catalan Dragons. Doesn't touch union though, USAP flags, jerseys ect are everywhere and the people are really in to it a lot more tbh. In Argentina aren't the religous orders like the Christian brothers and the Holy Ghosts very responsible for the growth of union?

toomevara

themont85 wrote: »

. In Argentina aren't the religous orders like the Christian brothers and the Holy Ghosts very responsible for the growth of union?

And this undermines my right wing, fascist theory how? Milud the prosecution rests.

JWAD

Snickers Man wrote: »

And my basic point is that without the little bit of venom that the working class/middle class divide in Britain, or the Loyalist/Republican split in Australia brought to it, there is not enough merit in the game itself to see it survive

Where are you getting this bollocks about a "loyalist v republican split" affecting the codes in Australia? Most of the best known Queenslanders who played rugby union for the country played their rugby in Catholic schools, for example.
Rugby Union hails from a private school background in quite a few countries. That is the difference.
Its only coming out of limited popularity here in the last few years. Its not that long ago that a Leinster v Munster game could be played in Donnybrook with plenty of room in the ground. The reason Scottish rugby has been in the poo the last few years is precisely because of the game's roots and very limited popularity, particularly in comparison with soccer there.

You ask about where rugby league has "taken root". How widespread is the game of RU in Italy apart in the private schools system? They have two top pro sides and after that, club lineups are riddled with overseas players. The top 8 teams in the world include Scotland dont they? Beyond that last ranking you'd swear RU has swept the world. It hasn't. Don't kid yourself or you'll see the last RWC as a shining example of a so-called global game. How many Americans or Canadians even knew the Churchill Cup was staged recently? TV ratings for the Portugal v All Blacks game in the RWC?
Stick to 'informing' us of the 'Garrison' sports side of your argument (even though RL was never a 'Garrison' sport seeing as it was banned in the British armed forces until not very long ago.

You found Origin boring and predictable? Fair enough. I didn't. The last 15 especially showed great attacking rugby. Had NSW a decent pair of halves, they might have done better. I love rugby league but I love rugby union too. As games. Which is why I have been nattering on and on and on about them til the cows come home........so forgive me (but do try learning a bit about the history of the games in Australia before silly loyalist/republican rants please and how "amateur" RU has really been )

Stev_o

I watched the Leeds vs Wigan match tonight bloody brilliant game i have to admit was very griping stuff and the last 10 minutes was a great spectacular of League and not mention the pressure penalty to win the game by Leeds 2nd goal kicker which just faded left (toomevara you must be gutted)

Shan75

I only managed to catch the last 30 minutes of tonight's game but I thought it was very good.Leeds showed great spirit to get back into it and only just failed although the penalty they were awarded was a little generous.

As far as the two codes go I, like most people in Ireland who enjoy rugby, was brought up following RU but over the years of watching the Silk Cut Challenge Cup(I used to love Wigan at this time but wouldn't really consider myself a fan of any team) through to the Super League and some of the wonderful Test games between Great Britain & Ireland(Later to be just called Great Britain) and Australia I have developed a liking for this code too.Of course GB has pretty much been disbanded now although I suppose most of the players were English anyway so when England take on Australia it will be almost the same.The only thing is though that outstanding Irish players like Brian Carney won't be able to shine at the top level anymore as they will now play for Ireland.Of course top Irish RL players are so rare that it hardly matters.

Anyway I enjoy both codes but on the whole I would prefer Union.Having the local interest makes a big difference of course.

toomevara

Stev_o wrote: »

I was a great spectacular of League and not mention the pressure penalty to win the game by Leeds 2nd goal kicker which just faded left (toomevara you must be gutted)

Feckin' crawsick, but what a game...wouldn't blame poor old rob burrows for the kick, Sinfields our place kicker...off with injury, twasn't meant to be, but what a bloody game....thats what RL is all about, and why i just cant get enough of it..last Wigan game was a thriller at Headingley too.

The Warriors are fast becoming our bogey team...but I'd have to say our worrying dip in form seems to have ended in that second half....bring on the play offs, not to mention the challenge cup...put 26 july in your diaries, Leeds V Saints in the challenge cup semis....will be immense!

Sundy

haha the paranoia among some league fans is hilarous!

http://plover.net/~bonds/rugby.html

Diamondmaker

Sundy wrote: »

haha the paranoia among some league fans is hilarous!

http://plover.net/~bonds/rugby.html

HILARIOUS !

Stev_o

Sundy wrote: »

haha the paranoia among some league fans is hilarous!

http://plover.net/~bonds/rugby.html

That piece was the worst argument iv seen in years pfff some people eh?

toomevara

Stev_o wrote: »

That piece was the worst argument iv seen in years pfff some people eh?

Obviously, total truth and irrefutable fact except that, inexplicably, he left out the bit about the sadistic albino monk fro Wigan who goes around murdering those who dispute he true gospel of RL....