Rugby Union is the original

[drico]

Just to settle this one, i'd just like to say that Rugby Union is the original and it is rugby league that broke away from union when they didn't like its laws. Which means that league is a cheap imitation of union, and union will always reign supreme

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by drico@Apr 21 2005, 05:58 AM
Just to settle this one, i'd just like to say that Rugby Union is the original and it is rugby league that broke away from union when they didn't like its laws. Which means that league is a cheap imitation of union, and union will always reign supreme

I know your just trying to start a fight here, but just to claify:
League did not "break away from because they didn't like the laws"... If you do a bit of reading on the subject then you'll realise that league originated from the Northern clubs in England who were predominantly working class, and as such were often psychially too much for the upper class clubs and therefore started dominating the competition... The RFU wasn't too happy about this and when they found out that northern club owners were compensating players for missed time at work with rugby training, they argued that they were "tainting the game" by sending it in the same direction as soccer and then expelled all the northern clubs from the competition and the RFU...
As a result the Northern clubs formed the "northern union" and made their own competition which was semi professional. Over time, due to it's professional status, the games administraters found it necessary to alter some rules to make the game more attractive to spectators.

 

[ak47]

Ok kids

Class finished...............Drico - u have now been educated!

 

[DonBilly]

Originally posted by sanzar+Apr 21 2005, 11:55 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sanzar @ Apr 21 2005, 11:55 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-drico

@Apr 21 2005, 05:58 AM
Just to settle this one, i'd just like to say that Rugby Union is the original and it is rugby league that broke away from union when they didn't like its laws. Which means that league is a cheap imitation of union, and union will always reign supreme

I know your just trying to start a fight here, but just to claify:
League did not "break away from because they didn't like the laws"... If you do a bit of reading on the subject then you'll realise that league originated from the Northern clubs in England who were predominantly working class, and as such were often psychially too much for the upper class clubs and therefore started dominating the competition... The RFU wasn't too happy about this and when they found out that northern club owners were compensating players for missed time at work with rugby training, they argued that they were "tainting the game" by sending it in the same direction as soccer and then expelled all the northern clubs from the competition and the RFU...
As a result the Northern clubs formed the "northern union" and made their own competition which was semi professional. Over time, due to it's professional status, the games administraters found it necessary to alter some rules to make the game more attractive to spectators. [/b]

That's definitively the schism story. When the Northern Rugby Union started they used exactly the same laws as those ruling the games managed by the RFU.

 

[Rassie]

SANZAR, you`re right. This is the story as it is.

But, becouse there is a big but, League is currently a pseudorugby. Perhaps for many it looks like it but let`s get real, it isn`t. Call it whatever do you like but don`t insult the rugby game cos League isn`t rugga. It`s more like a combination between american football (except for the helmets) and australian footie.

 

[wigan_rlfc]

Originally posted by drico@Apr 20 2005, 06:58 PM
Just to settle this one, i'd just like to say that Rugby Union is the original and it is rugby league that broke away from union when they didn't like its laws. Which means that league is a cheap imitation of union, and union will always reign supreme

If you could see a Union game from 1895 you would not recognise it at all. Both codes have adapted the rules over time so there is no 'original' form of rugby.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by Rassie@Apr 21 2005, 10:40 PM
SANZAR, you`re right. This is the story as it is.

But, becouse there is a big but, League is currently a pseudorugby. Perhaps for many it looks like it but let`s get real, it isn`t. Call it whatever do you like but don`t insult the rugby game cos League isn`t rugga. It`s more like a combination between american football (except for the helmets) and australian footie.

You've never watched a game of rugby league in your life have you mate?

In any case, as Wigan has just stated both sports bare almost no relation to the original sport of "Rugby Football"... Unless you want to bring Rugby Union back to the days of having 22 men on the feild at once and all points being scored off drop goals or massive 30 man mauls...

 

[St Helens RLFC]

Originally posted by Rassie@Apr 21 2005, 10:40 AM
SANZAR, you`re right. This is the story as it is.

But, becouse there is a big but, League is currently a pseudorugby. Perhaps for many it looks like it but let`s get real, it isn`t. Call it whatever do you like but don`t insult the rugby game cos League isn`t rugga. It`s more like a combination between american football (except for the helmets) and australian footie.

Watch a game of league properly before spouting ill informed drivel.

 

[sambãd5]

Originally posted by drico@Apr 21 2005, 05:58 AM
Just to settle this one, i'd just like to say that Rugby Union is the original and it is rugby league that broke away from union when they didn't like its laws. Which means that league is a cheap imitation of union, and union will always reign supreme

sorry to burst all your bubbles but...
to be honest, does it really matter weither union was the original?

 

[Rassie]

Yoy guys are mistaken, i`ve seen League quite recently. (australian rugby league). That`s beside the point anyway. Come on, doesn`t it look more like american football? Besides helmets and long commercial breaks, what else is different? I`m teasing you with NFL, but in a long rung there are quite relatie, much more than comparing with Union.

Let me see, you like `running rugby`, the kick and run concept. Fine by me, i can`t see the problem in that. But where are the mauls, where are the rucks, where is the pack. Beside that, tackle 1, tackle 2 and so on until tackle 5 cos after that comes a long kick in the touch (90% cases), not to mention the scrums.

Somehow, like in NFL, it`s all about possesion and making ground. Everybody in defence are expecting handling errors, while the attackers count the tackels.

RL is crap, IMO!

 

[St Helens RLFC]

I'd say that less than 5% of kicks on the last tackle go into touch, most kicks turn the full back or the winger around.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by Rassie@Apr 22 2005, 01:10 AM
Yoy guys are mistaken, i`ve seen League quite recently. (australian rugby league). That`s beside the point anyway. Come on, doesn`t it look more like american football? Besides helmets and long commercial breaks, what else is different? I`m teasing you with NFL, but in a long rung there are quite relatie, much more than comparing with Union.

Let me see, you like `running rugby`, the kick and run concept. Fine by me, i can`t see the problem in that. But where are the mauls, where are the rucks, where is the pack. Beside that, tackle 1, tackle 2 and so on until tackle 5 cos after that comes a long kick in the touch (90% cases), not to mention the scrums.

Somehow, like in NFL, it`s all about possesion and making ground. Everybody in defence are expecting handling errors, while the attackers count the tackels.

RL is crap, IMO!

It comes down to a very simple difference in the end Rassie. Rugby League is all about what you can do WITH the ball, and union is all about the CONTEST for the ball...

It's fine if you don't like it, just don't go calling it a sissy game again, as it is definately not a game for the soft! All the League to union converts over here have said that Rugby League is physically more difficult than rugby union... there are no breaks for line outs, scrums or extended waiting periods in rucks with league, it's all about the plays with the ball, rather than for the ball.

P.S saints is right, about 95% of kicks stay in the feild of play.

 

[Rassie]

SANZAR: "Rugby League is all about what you can do WITH the ball, and union is all about the CONTEST for the ball..." - 100% AGREE WITH YOU!

(Sorry i wrote with the caps, but that`s my opinion also)

 

[drico]

I am not trying to diss Rugby League in any way, but what i am saying is that Rugby Union was the first rugger, and then rugby league broke away. I am also saying that League is not as exciting as rugby union, and boring to watch. So in Conclusion-League is ood-but Union is better

p.s. sambad I know you don't like me

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by drico@Apr 22 2005, 05:32 AM
I am not trying to diss Rugby League in any way, but what i am saying is that Rugby Union was the first rugger, and then rugby league broke away. I am also saying that League is not as exciting as rugby union, and boring to watch. So in Conclusion-League is ood-but Union is better

p.s. sambad I know you don't like me

Yes, well as compelling as your "argument" is drico

, your still denying the fact that Rugby League did not break away... and that for the first years of it's existance played under the exact same rules...
And if i may reitterate:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

In any case, as Wigan has just stated both sports bare almost no relation to the original sport of "Rugby Football"... Unless you want to bring Rugby Union back to the days of having 22 men on the feild at once and all points being scored off drop goals or massive 30 man mauls...[/b]

Lastly, have you ever actually watched a game of rugby league?

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by sambad5+Apr 22 2005, 12:59 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sambad5 @ Apr 22 2005, 12:59 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-drico

@Apr 21 2005, 05:58 AM
Just to settle this one, i'd just like to say that Rugby Union is the original and it is rugby league that broke away from union when they didn't like its laws. Which means that league is a cheap imitation of union, and union will always reign supreme

sorry to burst all your bubbles but...
to be honest, does it really matter weither union was the original? [/b]

This is a good point actually, as Rugby was actually originally derived from soccer! So therefore by drico's standard Rugby is odd and boring compared to soccer lol.

 

[Rassie]

Well SANZAR, coming to soccer , Everton was Liverpool`s football team. After a while, some Evertonian`s decided to break up and they formed Liverpool FC (that had many `victories` than Everton). Quite opposite in terms of rugby. League is far to be as popular as Union.

Coming to the game, well, it looks like a combination of NFL and handball.

Otherwise, i think League could be the answer for our `quota system`. Our kaffers are more than fit for RL. Anyway, they are good runners. I will put them play League with your maoris and aborigens and thus relieve the pressure in the Union.

Therefore, i consider League to be the niche for our kaffers - quite an indea.

 

[DonBilly]

Originally posted by Rassie@Apr 22 2005, 06:15 PM
Well SANZAR, coming to soccer , Everton was Liverpool`s football team. After a while, some Evertonian`s decided to break up and they formed Liverpool FC (that had many `victories` than Everton). Quite opposite in terms of rugby. League is far to be as popular as Union.

Coming to the game, well, it looks like a combination of NFL and handball.

Otherwise, i think League could be the answer for our `quota system`. Our kaffers are more than fit for RL. Anyway, they are good runners. I will put them play League with your maoris and aborigens and thus relieve the pressure in the Union.

Therefore, i consider League to be the niche for our kaffers - quite an indea.

What do you call Handball? Handball, as far as I know, is an indoor game invented by the German with 7 players, one goalkeeper and 6 field players. It is quite popular on the European continent, Asia, North Africa and South America. To be honnest I don't see that many commonalities with League.

 

[Rassie]

For your info, Handball initially was a game played outdoor in 11 players.

The common thing is the ball passing through the lines!

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by Rassie@Apr 22 2005, 06:15 PM
Well SANZAR, coming to soccer , Everton was Liverpool`s football team. After a while, some Evertonian`s decided to break up and they formed Liverpool FC (that had many `victories` than Everton). Quite opposite in terms of rugby. League is far to be as popular as Union.

Coming to the game, well, it looks like a combination of NFL and handball.

Otherwise, i think League could be the answer for our `quota system`. Our kaffers are more than fit for RL. Anyway, they are good runners. I will put them play League with your maoris and aborigens and thus relieve the pressure in the Union.

Therefore, i consider League to be the niche for our kaffers - quite an indea.

Mostly whites play league in Australia... if anything our union teams are much more mixed!