• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The League and Union Overlap

tonytownend

Academy Player
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
3
Country Flag
England
Club or Nation
Huddersfield
Ive always been fascinated by the apparent divide between the two codes and often wondered why years of tradition and hostility should still in todays world prevent co-operation and cross code development at every level ?
I know some will say it happens already and the Tomkins union debut is one of many examples of modern day cross code co-operation. But my experience and involvement in the game with both codes tells me something different, a simmering resentment, a snipe here and there about which code is better and which is not, i guess we all have our personal preference, but i still struggle to understand why both codes cant survive a and grow, side by side and indeed co-operate and interact in a way that has mutual benefits.
What are the thoughts of rank and file rugby fans, ? can the codes co-exist, can they prosper and develop side by side, or are they forever destined to be separate entities, fueled by suspicion and loathing of each other, a stand off relationship conducted reluctantly at arms length? I wonder !

http://www.myrugbyshop.com
 


you won't see this happen very often, a player in National Division 2 South sets up a try with a header pass
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I've observed down the years of attending both codes is the "rivalry" is a lot more from Leagues opinion to Union then vice versa - a league fan will be more likely to have a chip on their shoulder then the reverse (not saying it doesn't happen, but it's deffo less noticeable).

At the end of the day all the 2 sports share is the name rugby. Otherwise they're chalk and cheese.
 
Keep the two sports separate, but the hatred between Union/League (mainly League at Union, to be honest) is a little petty, and should just be cut out
 
As an example banning Jonathan Davies from attending Cardiff Arms Park when he had signed for League. Why??
 
I don't know... we all like hating a bigger entity. We all hate association football. In Australia, I could bet that the grudge is from union to league... Pepsi hates Coca Cola, Yahoo hates Google (that last one probably works both ways).
The two codes compete in the capture of new talent and in attracting the crow, I don't see how they could co exists hapilly otherwise than dividing the season so they don't overlap.
 
League is just Rugby you played at break time in school cause you weren't bothered playing by the real rules
 
As an example banning Jonathan Davies from attending Cardiff Arms Park when he had signed for League. Why??

Because Union used to be a very stuffy sport, strictly anti-professional and therefore considered any player who 'sold his soul' for money to be traitorous. What Davies, Gibbs, Bateman etc. did is exactly the same as the majority of League-Union converts nowadays. You get a few situations where the player has had a background in Union and genuinely wants to play it, but usually cross-code conversions are money related.

It was blinkered of union to sneer at the Welsh converts of the 90s, but that's now in the past. If League fans can't get over that, then that's their problem.

For people who say the two games are completely different, I think that's ********. And if you want evidence, look at probably the most talented British club side, of either code, ever - Wigan of the 90s. We have Jason Robinson, Andy Farrell, Henry Paul, Va'aiga Tuigamala who were all dual code internationals. We have Martin Offiah who came to League from Union. Gary Connolly went to Union from League. And we have Shaun Edwards, a hugely successful Union coach (Farrell has also had some success in his early coaching career). Not to mention the likes of Quinnell. Most of the team has some connection with Union. The fact that both Wigan and Bradford have won the Middlesex sevens suggests that the two are far from different.

Instead of 'completely different', I'd make the analogy of Test and 20/20 cricket. Both involve bowlers bowling at batsmen. But 20/20 cricket is much more one-dimensional (and arguably more exciting because of it). Players must hone and practice specific skills in this game, and produce some wonderful plays. Some 20/20 players also excel at Test cricket, others are 20/20 specialists.

Replace 20/20 with RL there and it's still true.

Test cricket has very few artificial rules, because the overs are not limited, and there are no fielding restrictions.
Rugby Union has very few too, because tackles are not limited, and possession is contested at all times.
Extraordinary flair shots are more likely in T20; extraordinary examples of flair are more likely in League.
Compelling battles between a batsman and a bowler are able to develop in Tests but not T20. Compelling battles between props in a scrum, or 7s at the breakdown, do not occur in League.

That's just my theory. I love both forms of cricket, but prefer Tests. I love both codes of rugby, but prefer Union. Neither is better or worse, just different depending on what you get out of a sport.

And so, with regards to overlapping the sports, they have for the last 20 years, I don't see why this shouldn't continue. Cross-code games are gimmicky, but cross-code relations are still important, in the fight against the hegemony of football. We must be grateful that there are some bastions of the North where the round ball is still second choice. And both might well benefit from extra fans - true fans of the sport of rugby who can appreciate a free-flowing contact footy whether the players have mullets and snug shorts or posh accents and beer bellies.
 
Now the match on Saturday between BarBar's and Aus was boring, but at the end of the day people will have their views on what code of Rugby they prefer.
 
You can't really use one match from a sport as a barometer. As a prop who loves his scrummaging I have never really warmed to league. Sometimes it's alright but do often find it boring.
 
I don't really like watching league, but that is just because I never watched it growing up and I do think that some of the tries and hits in the game are really impressive and I do enjoy highlights, it's a bit like Soccer I can very rarely sit through a full match but I do appreciate a good goal or pass when I see one. I don't really know about the relationships between the two codes because there is no league in Ireland but I would suspect it is a bit like the Rugby-Gaelic Football relationship where, even though a lot of people play both the die hard GAA people don't like rugby because they feel it is a foreign professional sport which is stealing some talented footballers or hurlers away. And big ''Rugger Heads'' don't like GAA because it has a much bigger playing population and a lot of skilled rugby players would rather play for their county football team then their country. Which to be honest I think is a load of sh*t
 
Been very strange wandering onto Rugby League forums and seeing them basically using the Baabaas vs Aus game as the 'be all and end all' of the game of Union just because their attention was brought to it by the fact that Sam Tomkins was playing. It was a poor game, mostly because half the Baabaas players looked like they cba to be there, which is a massive pity. Interesting that many seemed convinced that the Barbarians are a tool used by the RFU (who in their mind seemed to be the only Union that actually means anything) to steal league players over to union. Funny that a club that's an entity on its own, and was founded in Penarth, Wales, have been stuck with this tag? :rolleyes: Really doesn;t seem that a fair few of them actually understand the whole concept of the Barbarians...

Personally I think League is a great sport and do really enjoy watching it, just prefer Union. Can't help but think that many League fans have an inferiority complex too, not quite sure about what exactly since they do have a very entertaining sport, there's just no need to constantly try to prove it's a better sport than it's Union counterpart.
 
I find league a great training or warm up game.

I spend a lot of time in Hull visiting friends who are either big F.C or K.R fans. To a man they hate union and what they see it standinding for.
They see Union as a sport for the upper class and one played by university students, doctors, army officers etc, etc.

The fact that the great welsh teams were from poor mining communities, that a number of the amauteur clubs in counties such as Leicester and Northants are populated by the hard grafting farming communities. This all seems to escape some Leaugue fans and the fact that part of the reason the codes split was the fact that Northern Leaugue clubs wanted to make money and pay players.

The belief is that league is the game for the working man, where hard working Northern men play proper rugby. A certain amount of jealousy is displayed since Union seems to grow and grow every year, and the great days of League seem to have gone. The days when everyone knew the big league stars such as Martin Offiah, Ellery Hanley,Shaun Edwards.

The hatred as I see it and as others have said, is more directed from Leaugue towards union. Where as most union fans dislike league because of the lack of finer points such as rucking, line outs, scrums to name a few.

Union as a game takes little away from Leauge, the two main things that I can think of is the difference in defence. When Union started looking at defending the gain line very similar to Leauge and the impact League defencsive coaches have had on Union. An example being Shaun Edwards. The other one I can think of is player size, mobility in running attacking lines etc.

Proberly the best known convert from Union to League in the U.K Jonathan Davis allegedly said that it only took him about six games to learn all there is to know about League.
 
Because Union used to be a very stuffy sport, strictly anti-professional and therefore considered any player who 'sold his soul' for money to be traitorous. What Davies, Gibbs, Bateman etc. did is exactly the same as the majority of League-Union converts nowadays. You get a few situations where the player has had a background in Union and genuinely wants to play it, but usually cross-code conversions are money related.

It was blinkered of union to sneer at the Welsh converts of the 90s, but that's now in the past. If League fans can't get over that, then that's their problem.

For people who say the two games are completely different, I think that's ********. And if you want evidence, look at probably the most talented British club side, of either code, ever - Wigan of the 90s. We have Jason Robinson, Andy Farrell, Henry Paul, Va'aiga Tuigamala who were all dual code internationals. We have Martin Offiah who came to League from Union. Gary Connolly went to Union from League. And we have Shaun Edwards, a hugely successful Union coach (Farrell has also had some success in his early coaching career). Not to mention the likes of Quinnell. Most of the team has some connection with Union. The fact that both Wigan and Bradford have won the Middlesex sevens suggests that the two are far from different.

Instead of 'completely different', I'd make the analogy of Test and 20/20 cricket. Both involve bowlers bowling at batsmen. But 20/20 cricket is much more one-dimensional (and arguably more exciting because of it). Players must hone and practice specific skills in this game, and produce some wonderful plays. Some 20/20 players also excel at Test cricket, others are 20/20 specialists.

Replace 20/20 with RL there and it's still true.

Test cricket has very few artificial rules, because the overs are not limited, and there are no fielding restrictions.
Rugby Union has very few too, because tackles are not limited, and possession is contested at all times.
Extraordinary flair shots are more likely in T20; extraordinary examples of flair are more likely in League.
Compelling battles between a batsman and a bowler are able to develop in Tests but not T20. Compelling battles between props in a scrum, or 7s at the breakdown, do not occur in League.

That's just my theory. I love both forms of cricket, but prefer Tests. I love both codes of rugby, but prefer Union. Neither is better or worse, just different depending on what you get out of a sport.

And so, with regards to overlapping the sports, they have for the last 20 years, I don't see why this shouldn't continue. Cross-code games are gimmicky, but cross-code relations are still important, in the fight against the hegemony of football. We must be grateful that there are some bastions of the North where the round ball is still second choice. And both might well benefit from extra fans - true fans of the sport of rugby who can appreciate a free-flowing contact footy whether the players have mullets and snug shorts or posh accents and beer bellies.

My analogy for my friends on either side of the divide is:

Rugby = Chess.
Requires a great deal of tactics, almost every position/situation is contestable cannot be simply won on strength and could possibly be won by the most defensive opponent.

League = Checkers.
All Action. Very little slow moments. Can be repetitive.

Both great games and takes a certain select person to truly enjoy both :cool:

In the Southern Hemisphere, League pretty much developed as an offshoot (from the UK) and amateur sport, developed fully in Australia as a modern professional sport. Massive tribalism therefore massive support and crowds especially among the more working class (which is HUGE). Rugby went the other way and became more upper class and developed through their private schools system. In NZ, Rugby League still treated 3rd maybe 4th sport, strong base among the working class especially in Auckland, Rugby still pretty elitist especially during the 60/70's when PI's & Maori's went to League. Rugby went onto become all consuming and professional in NZ. Rugby tookover League grounds in Auckland and League developed lots of junior players then got fed into either the higher paying Aus Clubs (your Sonny Bills) or changed codes at an early age (your Tana Umagas).

The difference of going to a NZ warriors game and maybe the Blues was fairly stark maybe 5-10 years ago in terms of the demographic. PI's/Maori's dominated the numbers at NZ warriors not so much at the Blues. That said - that could've been down to the massive difference in prices at the Gates. (had a big difference for me) I've found the League only supporters to be much more crass than the Rugby only.

TLDR? - League little brother vs Rugby big brother. Same old story.

I showed up at the Ireland vs Australia RWC game in my Warriors jersey (i was neutral) was getting high fives from both supporters. Good times.
 
My analogy for my friends on either side of the divide is:

Rugby = Chess.
Requires a great deal of tactics, almost every position/situation is contestable cannot be simply won on strength and could possibly be won by the most defensive opponent.
I like that analogy, I use it often also for the positions:
pawns = tight-five forwards, doing the most imporant work: going forward, and protecting the king.
king = halfback pairing. Need to be protected and kept out of the action itself.
bishops = centres, running odd lines to penetrate into the opponent's defence.
knights = flankers, going here and there causing mess.
And my favorite: rooks = wingers, the development of a chess tableau is done when you manage to put the rooks together and make attacks with one in support of the other, just like the wingers need to find each other in moves after set pieces to penetrate in midfield. It's what I tell winger in my club :)
I haven't managed to find an analogy with the queen. Probably it does both the fullback and the number 8, but it'a a bit more surreal.
 
As an example banning Jonathan Davies from attending Cardiff Arms Park when he had signed for League. Why??

Could say the exact same thing about Rugby league. Georgia were banned from playing league for 2 years simply because some of their team played union as well. Not just those players, but the entire country were banned from playing internationally. Why??.....
 

Latest posts

Top