Rugby League v Rugby Union : Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:39 am  

In light in what Nobby spoke of on the SL show I would like to examine and raise discussion with regards to the two codes.

For one I am VERY pro Rugby League, so I'll say sorry in advance for any one-sided comments.

I believe RL is 'improved rugby'. To elaborate on this point firstly lets look at RU, and what I find wrong with the game.

1, Possession can be lost anywhere on the field with a turn over in the tackle, this creates a situation were field position is vital. To not lose the ball in your own half the team will have no other choice but to kick from their half to the opposition, the opposition then will be faced with the same predicament and have to kick back, thus resulting in a game were two teams kick the ball back and forth to each other-not entertaining rugby.
The 6 tackle rule protects the ball carrier allowing them to run with the ball making running/ball carrying the main source of attack. RL then constantly features the most exciting part of rugby, running with the ball in attack.

2, The point scoring system. In RU 3 points for a drop kick, 5 for a try. This creates a situation were several drop kicks can win you the game, its far easier and less entertaining to watch two teams kick for drops when they're down the other teams end. Pushing for a try is more entertaining, this is what happens in RL with 4 points for a try and only 1 for a drop. This allows the drop kick to become a last minute match winning move adding more excitement to the 1 point finish after nearly 80mins of two teams running the ball.

3, Fitness. A controversial point, but if a man has to do more running over an 80min period he has to be fitter. In league the game is non stop running with minimal kicking, RU has far less running action from the defense and attack.

4, The ruck/maul area, difficult to see who has the ball, not entertaining rugby.

5, Penalties. In RU due to the nature of the ruck and maul we seed many knock ons then go un-counted for, a sport which contradicts the rules set in place to govern the sport. Forward passes are more 'relaxed'.

These are just a few points-please elaborate!

BUT.. What about RU as a positive?

IMO RL is the far better game, and that's what truly matters but I honestly believe that's the end of RL's upperhand.

Fundamentally if we look at the advent of TV and broadcasting in the UK we see the epicenter being London, public school boys from the south dominating the sport index pushing their 'rugger' as the rugby to hit the airways, granted RU has been around longer managing to build the sport globally forming a fantastic fan base while poor marketing and lack of funding kept 'working mans' RL in the north of England.

The marketing over the years in RL has seen many changes to compete and offer a different 'brand' to RU. SL, changing the names to a more NFL feel after the NRL changed suit.

But still today we see awesome internationals in RU, massive crowds all attending the 6 nations with a each country having a 'true' national team, whereas in stark contrast we see a RL WC fizzle without any true international bang.

What I'd give to see a RL 6 nations, a RL WL with the magnitude of the RU WC. So to link back, to raise media attention by bringing over a Johnny Wikinson or an O'Driscoll would be a positive step, raise the profile and help develop the sport in such rugby loving countries as Ireland, Wales Italy and France.

RL has the better sport, but not the better marketing or promotion.

We are the sruffy younger working class cousin who has the ability to put the fear of god in their older public school boy cousin, all we need is that chance.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:51 am  

totaly agree with the above post. although the rugby league influence that has crept into rugby union especialy at international level. has made rugby union a far more pleasing game to watch.
IMO league far better to watch certainly at club level.
saying that wigan playing very boring rugby at the moment.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:59 am  

I've been brought up on rugby league, but having moved down south have been exposed to more and more rugby union (playing and watching). My opinion is that they are two different games, and should be viewed on their own merits as opposed to being compared to one another.

Rugby league will always be number one, but some aspects of rugby union that are very enjoyable could never occur in rugby league and vice versa. For example, when a team gets on a roll in rugby union and can hammer an opposition for play after play.

I think rugby league offers a consistently higher quality of game, but some rugby union matches can be equally exciting as league matches (especially if you have been watching some of the sh!te turned out by Wigan under Noble). I think Rugby League has definitely got more boring over the past two or three years, but don't think that we should constantly try and compare ourselves with RU.

Re: Rugby League v Rugby Union : Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:04 am  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

In light in what Nobby spoke of on the SL show I would like to examine and raise discussion with regards to the two codes.

For one I am VERY pro Rugby League, so I'll say sorry in advance for any one-sided comments.

I believe RL is 'improved rugby'. To elaborate on this point firstly lets look at RU, and what I find wrong with the game.

1, Possession can be lost anywhere on the field with a turn over in the tackle, this creates a situation were field position is vital. To not lose the ball in your own half the team will have no other choice but to kick from their half to the opposition, the opposition then will be faced with the same predicament and have to kick back, thus resulting in a game were two teams kick the ball back and forth to each other-not entertaining rugby.
The 6 tackle rule protects the ball carrier allowing them to run with the ball making running/ball carrying the main source of attack. RL then constantly features the most exciting part of rugby, running with the ball in attack.

2, The point scoring system. In RU 3 points for a drop kick, 5 for a try. This creates a situation were several drop kicks can win you the game, its far easier and less entertaining to watch two teams kick for drops when they're down the other teams end. Pushing for a try is more entertaining, this is what happens in RL with 4 points for a try and only 1 for a drop. This allows the drop kick to become a last minute match winning move adding more excitement to the 1 point finish after nearly 80mins of two teams running the ball.

3, Fitness. A controversial point, but if a man has to do more running over an 80min period he has to be fitter. In league the game is non stop running with minimal kicking, RU has far less running action from the defense and attack.

4, The ruck/maul area, difficult to see who has the ball, not entertaining rugby.

5, Penalties. In RU due to the nature of the ruck and maul we seed many knock ons then go un-counted for, a sport which contradicts the rules set in place to govern the sport. Forward passes are more 'relaxed'.

These are just a few points-please elaborate!

BUT.. What about RU as a positive?

IMO RL is the far better game, and that's what truly matters but I honestly believe that's the end of RL's upperhand.

Fundamentally if we look at the advent of TV and broadcasting in the UK we see the epicenter being London, public school boys from the south dominating the sport index pushing their 'rugger' as the rugby to hit the airways, granted RU has been around longer managing to build the sport globally forming a fantastic fan base while poor marketing and lack of funding kept 'working mans' RL in the north of England.

The marketing over the years in RL has seen many changes to compete and offer a different 'brand' to RU. SL, changing the names to a more NFL feel after the NRL changed suit.

But still today we see awesome internationals in RU, massive crowds all attending the 6 nations with a each country having a 'true' national team, whereas in stark contrast we see a RL WC fizzle without any true international bang.

What I'd give to see a RL 6 nations, a RL WL with the magnitude of the RU WC. So to link back, to raise media attention by bringing over a Johnny Wikinson or an O'Driscoll would be a positive step, raise the profile and help develop the sport in such rugby loving countries as Ireland, Wales Italy and France.

RL has the better sport, but not the better marketing or promotion.

We are the sruffy younger working class cousin who has the ability to put the fear of god in their older public school boy cousin, all we need is that chance.

I think the 2 codes can and should learn much from each other, unfortunately from a League point of view the game seems too set in its ways to try and learn from Union and the Union boys are more than happy to learn from League.

The fitness issue you raise has some validity but there is a huge difference between the physiological requirements of League and Union. Union players are conditioned to play Union, League players are conditioned to play League, I would not expect a League forward to be able to handle the "fitness" requirements of a union game, just as i would not expect a union forward to be able to handle the fitness requirements of a league game. This may put a few noses out of joint but i would say in terms of power the Union guys are ahead of the League guys due to the nature of the sport and the longer rest periods, i would also so that there is far more natural pace in Union than there is in League, in this country anyway.

I watched the England Wales game on Saturday, and have to say after watching the SL games last year and Englands world cup campaign and Wigan's start to the year, i was taken aback by the players of both teams to take the ball into contact, look for support, draw a man and pass and run lines that are capable of hurting defences, which brings me on to the second point that Union players have become far more game intelligent than certainly players in SL.

In league i think almost every team does this we have a culture of running our backs/wide men out of space. We have a drift mentality trying to get the outside line but everyone does this meaning we end up with the wide men cramped against the touch line and rarely looking to come inside provide the carrier with an inside option. We have lost the ability to run a straight line, and players like Hock stand out because from time to time they do. Jamie Lyon was another player that hit angles or encouraged those around him to run angles off him and the effects were devistating.

When played well League is undoubtedly the better product, but i feel within the game there is a lethargy to learn and improve itself, and we take this for granted and ojur skill levels are suffering, you could not say after the World Cup Englands elite League players are as skillfull as Englands Elite Union players for example.

Its a worrying time for league regards this issue especially in Wigan with the football team doing well, are people willing to continue to pay to watch a code that is designed to entertain but in truth is not or could they be tempted to watch the football team/Sale Sharks.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:59 pm  

English Rugby Union will soon be brought to its knees.

With french super 14 comp not having a salary cap. English players are transfering across to France and trebling their wage.

This will obviously ruin the English competition.

But this could also mean that English Rugby Onion clubs pick off Rugby League players

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:42 pm  

Or RL players could join the french league as well..

Sonny Bill? Gasnier?

[DaveO]

Re: Rugby League v Rugby Union : Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:39 pm  

Last Son of Wigan wrote:

1, Possession can be lost anywhere on the field with a turn over in the tackle, this creates a situation were field position is vital. To not lose the ball in your own half the team will have no other choice but to kick from their half to the opposition, the opposition then will be faced with the same predicament and have to kick back, thus resulting in a game were two teams kick the ball back and forth to each other-not entertaining rugby.
The 6 tackle rule protects the ball carrier allowing them to run with the ball making running/ball carrying the main source of attack. RL then constantly features the most exciting part of rugby, running with the ball in attack.

It is true games can revolve around kicking too much but good sides can secure possession (which is what RU is all about) without resorting to a kicking game.

The other side of the coin is sides can also tie up possession in the forwards with the backs not getting a look in.

My view is for RU to be attractive it requires the teams to almost agree not to play a percentage game.

RU types will argue a good forwards tussle and low scoring game is as entertaining as any other outcome. It is a forwards game at many levels. My son plays it and is a back and is far less involved than the those in the pack.

2, The point scoring system. In RU 3 points for a drop kick, 5 for a try. This creates a situation were several drop kicks can win you the game, its far easier and less entertaining to watch two teams kick for drops when they're down the other teams end. Pushing for a try is more entertaining, this is what happens in RL with 4 points for a try and only 1 for a drop. This allows the drop kick to become a last minute match winning move adding more excitement to the 1 point finish after nearly 80mins of two teams running the ball.

Agreed they should bite the bullet and drop the penalties to two points.

3, Fitness. A controversial point, but if a man has to do more running over an 80min period he has to be fitter. In league the game is non stop running with minimal kicking, RU has far less running action from the defense and attack.

As Jonh says, it's just different types of fitness required.

4, The ruck/maul area, difficult to see who has the ball, not entertaining rugby.

The problem is not the ruck or the maul but what happens when it stops with a whistle. They form the inevitable scrum and it is another stoppage. Well executed rucks and mauls do not last forever but should be a prelude to getting the ball out and into play into later phases. What is also frustrating about this aspect of RU is watching the ball come out and then be taken back in again!

5, Penalties. In RU due to the nature of the ruck and maul we seed many knock ons then go un-counted for, a sport which contradicts the rules set in place to govern the sport. Forward passes are more 'relaxed'.

Unfortunately even since Cummings has been in charge we have changed rules in RL such that the ref must interpret them far more than in the past. I am not convinced RL is not as "clean" a game as it once was for clearly defined rules. Things do go unpunished in RU and the ultimate acknowledgement of that was when lifting in the line out was made legal to cut down the penalties.

Fundamentally if we look at the advent of TV and broadcasting in the UK we see the epicenter being London, public school boys from the south dominating the sport index pushing their 'rugger' as the rugby to hit the airways, granted RU has been around longer managing to build the sport globally forming a fantastic fan base while poor marketing and lack of funding kept 'working mans' RL in the north of England.

The marketing over the years in RL has seen many changes to compete and offer a different 'brand' to RU. SL, changing the names to a more NFL feel after the NRL changed suit.

Not sure what your point is here. RU has been the game of the establishment for decades but RL can blame itself for that in part with a poor approach to the international game.

But still today we see awesome internationals in RU, massive crowds all attending the 6 nations with a each country having a 'true' national team, whereas in stark contrast we see a RL WC fizzle without any true international bang.

They are big occasions but the RU international game is still dominated by a few teams in pretty much the same way RL is. The depth of the RU international game is almost as much of a PR exercise as RL's. Our biggest failing is not getting France as a competitive International side. The game just isn't big enough in Scotland or Ireland to make it sensible to compare. We should have a different slant on International competition and bring the French and PNG on more and have emerging nations competitions (we had one in one world cup and it was a great success which I guess is why we never repeated it!)

What I'd give to see a RL 6 nations, a RL WL with the magnitude of the RU WC. So to link back, to raise media attention by bringing over a Johnny Wikinson or an O'Driscoll would be a positive step, raise the profile and help develop the sport in such rugby loving countries as Ireland, Wales Italy and France.

It isn't going to happen and if it did I doubt it would have the effect you describe. It would be a blip in the sporting news.

I read in the Mirror 8 page pull out comments from Clare Balding that this year there is no RU world, cup, no major soccer championship and not a lot else going on team sport wise when the SL season is on. She was saying it was time for RL to take the chance to get itself in the shop window while the opportunity was there. Unfortunately I doubt anyone at RL HQ realised this was the case.

Unfortunately we are our own worst enemies.

Dave

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:52 pm  

RU is a game of posession, dont take risks, dont get exposed. It stifles flair players and is generally too stop start. New rules around the ruck/maul allow more players in the defensive line which makes space a premium
Take 2 players out of RU and things could change very quickly, bearing in mind we, RL, have coached out ball players, forward runners, ball playing props and genious halves.
RL sits on the fence, one side is greatness the other obscurity, our greatest failing is tasked with leading us one way or the other, senior management.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:11 pm  

maurice wrote:

RU is a game of posession, dont take risks, dont get exposed. It stifles flair players and is generally too stop start. New rules around the ruck/maul allow more players in the defensive line which makes space a premium
Take 2 players out of RU and things could change very quickly, bearing in mind we, RL, have coached out ball players, forward runners, ball playing props and genious halves.
RL sits on the fence, one side is greatness the other obscurity, our greatest failing is tasked with leading us one way or the other, senior management.

Starting to sound all too familliar in League circles as well particullarly in the Wigan area sadly.

: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:26 pm  

I simply think, on a game level RL is more enjoyable to watch.

The PR machine with the more established RU is RU's advantage. I'm openly biased towards RL and can't understand why a neutral with sway towards RL or RU could or would prefer the game of RU, Ignoring the platform it's been put on.