Rugby league vs rugby union is like checkers vs chess
Roar Guru By Ian from NZ, 4 Jun 2008 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
Rugby union is like chess and rugby league is like checkers. Checkers is a game where the piece does the same thing. And rugby league is a game where all the players do the same thing.
They take the ball up. On the tackle, they put the ball through their legs and start again.
Rugby league scrums are golden oldie scrums, so that doesn’t count. There are no line-outs or malls.
Sure, running the ball up has a different degree on demand between the forward and backs, but not much.
To disallow one team having all the possession, there is a six tackle count, as the game does not allow more contests for possession to change hands.
Rugby league players, if put together in a police line-up, would all look the same physical design.
Chess, on the other hand, is a game where the piece does many different things.
The array of very different abilities of each chess piece allows the chess player to be very creative when it comes down to tactics. Chess has more structure than checkers, just as union has more structure than league.
And it should remain so.
Rugby union can be broken down into combinations: frontrow, backrow, loose forwards, the back of scrum, centre-field, back three.
These combinations perform as units within the structured game of rugby, performing specialised roles, with specific skills and body shape.
Fracturing the demand for a player with these specialised skills is a move away from the structured (chess) game and a move towards a more generic player (checkers). The generic player will be selected on his ability to multi-task rather than perform a specialised role (like having 15 loose forwards).
Rugby has been able to live within a fine balance of structured (scrums, malls, kick offs, 22 dropouts, full line-outs) and non-structured play (phase play, quick taps, quick lineouts).
The operative word is ‘balance’, and all rule changes should be measured on how they keep this very fine balance (see my comments on ELVs) .
Balance is critical, as it allows a fair chance for the rugby player’s specialised skill (prop, half back, 2nd 5/8, and so on) to be exercised within the game’s many contests (frontrow contests, mid-field contests, tall timber line-out contests, speedster wing contests, and back of the scrum contests).
Non-structured play reduces the fair chance of these type of contests occurring within a game as the play in a one-on-one contest is random and not structured.
If rugby administrators break the rule that ‘rugby is like chess’, they will have a hybrid game that is somewhere between checkers (union) and chess (league).
A hybrid game will see rugby lose its hard won identity, and the marketing boys will tell you that to have a good brand, you need a distinctive point of difference from the competition.
The honest intention to attract TV revenues from the temporary fan (those that watch rugby league, Australian Rules, American football, and football) is commendable, but not at the expense of the ‘true rugby fan’.
Rule changes and playing times suitable for TV viewing are not always in the best interest of the rugby fan. Administrators must protect the base that got the game from 1901 to 2008.
Forwards should be forwards, and backs should be backs. Rugby must remain game for fatties, skinnies, tall and short players!
Any thing else is not the rugby game that I fell for when I was a young fella watching the All Blacks win and lose. If I my views are in the minority, then I will be another number in the statistic titled ‘Declining attendance’.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
June 4th 2008 @ 10:42am
TembaVJ said | June 4th 2008 @ 10:42am | Report comment
I agree with Peter K, as long as forward play (scrums, malls and so on) remain a tactical part of the game I am happy. Even chess must of had changes to make it the game it is today. Rugby is not yet perfect and maybe it will never be but to much change to fast could have uncontrollable outcomes.
Lets see how the international season goes, especially the Tri-nations but Ill bet my life on it the mall collapsing was a step to far and will not have a positive outcome on the game, not for the masses anyways. We will see defensive line being stronger due to players not committing to the mall and there for even less players crossing the line.
June 4th 2008 @ 10:45am
Gatesy said | June 4th 2008 @ 10:45am | Report comment
I have never fully understood the rationale behind the driving maul anyway. What sort of contest is it, in reality? It is a one-sided one if the other side is not allowed to stop it. It seems to me to be a legal way to hide the ball from the other side and put the opposition in a situation where they cannot directly contest the ball, which you can do in every other facet of the game. Basically, it amounts to legalised obstruction.
What distinguishes our game from others is the many different contests FOR POSSESSION of the ball, such as the kick, the ruck, maul, scrum, lineout etc. I say have the rolling maul, but give the opposition a way to end it, so that the ball is contestable. Who knows, innovative coaches may come up with new solutions that we haven’t thought of, which make it an interesting contest in itself. So what’s wrong with bringing it to a halt by pulling it down?
Another point about the ELVs’.. I recently attended a coaches evening where we were given a number of stats relating to the ELV’s. The one that I found interesting was that on average teams are now only playing 2.2 phases of structured play, before it becomes unstructured. That suggests that coaches should coach players to be more instinctive and become skilful at playing whatever is in front of them, but I recalled that every time a team like the Brumbies this year (particularly with Phibbs behind the pack) played more than, say 5 phases, a try almost always resulted, and surely if what Laurie Fisher and Phil Mooney are saying is correct, you want to keep the ball in play (ie retain possession) for longer, so as to score tries, rather than in trying to milk penalties, which happened under the actual (non-ELV) laws.
I, too, hope that structure does not disappear from our game, as otherwise it will evolve into a clueless bash and barge contest.
June 4th 2008 @ 11:06am
Peter K said | June 4th 2008 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Gatesy yes a contest for the ball is central to rugby.
However let’s compare a mauland a scrum. The contest for the ball in a scrum is when the ball is put in. Then once they have won the ball and have it at the back they can push the scrum as far as they want with no contest for the ball possible. All the defence can do is halt the scrum, they are not allowed to drop it.
The maul is a dynamic active version of the scrum. The contest for the ball is at engagement where the ball has to be presented at the front, otherwise it is ‘truck and trailer’, once ypou have won this contest you have the right to hold it at the back and drive just like a scrum. Just like a scrum you cannot pull it down. On a rolling maul the ball has to be available at the front again until engagement.
I disagree strongly with your view that there is no current way to stop a maul. There is. You put more players into it and pushing back, i.e. take players out of the defensive line which is what the maul was intended for, to create wide open spaces for the backs. The reason you cannot pull down a maul is it is dangerous, just like a scrum, it can lead to serious neck injuries. Also it is far far to easy to pull down a maul. All it takes is one player, it is quite easy hence eliminating the maul.
June 4th 2008 @ 11:06am
Nicko said | June 4th 2008 @ 11:06am | Report comment
well said matt, stop living the past the rest of you spanners
June 4th 2008 @ 11:09am
Matt said | June 4th 2008 @ 11:09am | Report comment
An intersting stat indeed Gatesy. Although while people seem to fear a non structured game, surely the less structure (and less predicatability) a game has the further we will move from League and the more exciting games will become.
That is unless if you count rucks as being predicatable and structured, which they often can be.
Many of this seasons Super14 games had large passages of unstructred play. Movements that surged up and down the field with many changes of possession and a good crossection of rugby skills, with some excellent advatages played by the referee.
These unstructured patterns are very exciting and enthralling IMO. Sometimes you almost look forward to a stoppage to catch a replay or to simply have a breater from the excitement. Surely a great indictment of the ELV’s?
I’m holding my overall judgement of the Maul rules until after I’ve seen them in proper action. I can very easily see teams still using the maul well and simply wheeling away from attempted collapses as often is the case currently.
I agree that the maul, while a much loved child of Rugby, doesn’t offer an even contest. The defending team must try to keep the maul up and are therefore at a disadvantage. With the current blend of ELV’s, the maul has been used at a rate which means it is unique enough to remain exciting, but not over used when compared to the amount of running rugby.
Ian has stated that the 10 man game has been strangled out of existance. I would suggest that we wait and see how teams who usually rely on forward play for success operate and adapt the ELV’s. The NH trials will be very interesting indeed.
June 4th 2008 @ 11:22am
Ian in NZ said | June 4th 2008 @ 11:22am | Report comment
matt..”These unstructured patterns are very exciting and enthralling IMO. Sometimes you almost look forward to a stoppage to catch a replay or to simply have a breater from the excitement. Surely a great indictment of the ELV’s?”…
Too much of this, an imbalance, then the game is not rugby union, its something else.
PEOPLE, you must define what you belive rugby union to be, so that you can measure laws changes against this defintion, a weak definition of rugby union will result in messy rule changes. Rugby union is a balance between structured and non structured play, too much to the latter and its not rugby union its a hybrid !
June 4th 2008 @ 11:38am
Jock m said | June 4th 2008 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Rugby has become a defensive game because the laws are favouring the attacking team.
It is difficult to steal a ball because the attcking side can play the ball on the ground thus the defence has very little incentive to engage and forms a defensive line instead.
The rugby breakdown is now little different than a league play the ball.Rugby players do not stand up and play the ball between their legs,they merely roll over and push it back or play it with thier hands.
I am amazed at how a ball can lay at the back of a ruck with the half back not having to deal with it immediately.Because the rucks are so static the backline second phase play is flat footed and predictable.
June 4th 2008 @ 11:41am
Matt said | June 4th 2008 @ 11:41am | Report comment
A hybrid of what exactly Ian? The definition of a hybrid is the offspring of two different breeds.
You are somehow suggesting that rugby is originally a structured game by nature when compared to other sports.
If you compare Rugby to the other contacts sports I would see American Football as being at one extreme, with almost 100% set plays. Rugby League would then be the next most structured game, with its 5 hit ups + kick mentality. Rugby Union would then be the most unstructured game. Closer to Soccer in it’s fluidity of movement and contest for possesion.
So, I see a move towards less structure as being a step away from league and American Football and a step towards making Rugby Union more unique. Certainly not a hybrid in anyway shape or form.
June 4th 2008 @ 11:42am
sheek said | June 4th 2008 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Ian from NZ,
One pertinent point why RL & RU continue to exist side by side is that neither has been able to make itself an intrinsicly superior spectacle to the other.
One (RL) is accused of being repetitive & lacking depth of thinking, the other (RU) is accused of being stop-start & over-governed.
Then again, maybe people like it that way, which explains the continued existence of BOTH chess & checkers, coke & pepsi, etc, etc!
June 4th 2008 @ 11:59am
Ian in NZ said | June 4th 2008 @ 11:59am | Report comment
Matt..”A hybrid of what exactly Ian? The definition of a hybrid is the offspring of two different breeds.”..
ME: My article is clear on this union and league.
Matt…”So, I see a move towards less structure as being a step away from league and American Football (???) and a step towards making Rugby Union more unique.”…
ME: I CANT see how would ever conclude this, maybe I should have used ‘touch football’ or ‘bull rush’. Ruck to ruck to ruck to ruck to ruck is just boring and is as complicated as childrens marbles. However there are those that prefer to dumb down a sport so the not so smart public can learnt it and buy a ticket…say like cricket, test match, to one day, to 20/20, whats next 5 man rounders !