By Michael C
November 4th 2008 @ 1:48am
Loading ...Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates..
---------------
Which sports should merge to form a ’super’ sport?
Much has been said, both positive and negative, about the AFL International Rules series against the Irish GAA teams. However, if ever two codes could run a ‘compromise’ rules game, it would be the two rugby codes.
How much would the league boys love to see the ARL Kangaroos take on the ARU Wallabies?
So the question is, how would you logically construct the rules for such a game? The answer is that it should be a merger of the two codes.
But what other sports could we apply a bit of a ‘best features’ pluck from each to develop a ’super sport?’ Basketball and netball? Ladies beach volleyball, mud wrestling, and the US lingerie bowl?
Super 14 tipping now live for sign-ups. Join now and invite your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(25)
There are certain sentences a rugby writer believes he will never write and one them was (notice the past tense): 'Al Baxter monsters Andrew Sheridan...'
Loading ...
Major Spliff Biggins said | November 4th 2008 @ 3:18am | Report comment
Not possible.
The only comparison between the 2 is in backlines.
The contest at the breakdown, contested scrums and line outs would prove it impossible. For safety reasons alone you could not scrummage, and modifying the rules would depower all the strengths union would have over league.
It’s not possible, the only thing close to this you could manage would be rugby sevens v league sevens, but that’s a different game anyway…
sheek said | November 4th 2008 @ 7:23am | Report comment
The problem with finding a compromise game between rugby union & rugby league, is what to do at the ‘breakdown’, or ‘tackled player’. It’s like mixing water & oil, & so far the wisdom of such a task has eluded even the best human minds.
It’s possible you can retain lineouts & 15 players, but how you decide the breakdown will determine if the “new” game is essentially union or league. A point that may be lost on unionites, who claim their code is closer to the “original”, is that the ‘play-the-ball’ is closer to the original form of rugby than the ‘continuous contest’ for possession.
However, to confuse the issue, it depends at which point you land your time travel vehicle into the past. As rugby evolved over many decades between the 1820s to 1870s, features developed that have today found their way into rugby union, rugby league, Australian football & American football.
Yes, that’s right! The ‘down’ in American football is a derivative of the play the ball in league. And “forcings back” by kicking, & no offside became staples of Australian football, borrowed from early forms of rugby. So all these elements at one time or another characterized rugby.
My view at present, is that the only way union & league will come together, is by one code swallowing the other. Union pretty well rules the world today anyway (as opposed to league). Only in Australia does the reverse apply.
In a future scenario, the best league can hope for is a “tweaking” of the union rules to accommodate some league characteristics, & more importantly, an attempt to retain as many of its icons as possible. That is, European (English) Super League (ESL) clubs & Australian National Rugby League (NRL) clubs.
Otherwise, at this point, I would suggest the future is pretty much rugby union. Not that I’m suggesting union deserves the spoils of victories. But for however it has come to this point in time, they are in the driver’s seat.
jimbo said | November 4th 2008 @ 8:47am | Report comment
International rules is a good combo - an AFL field with football goals and you can use your hands in the penalty area!
Combining the biggest game in the southern half of Australia with the biggest game in the world.
Combining League and Union is a backward step and both games have gone through over 100 years of refinement and changes.
Just be happy with the sporting biodiversity - I’m glad we have such great sporting teams in Australia to follow.
Combining sports will mean less games, less competition and less entertainment.
sheek said | November 4th 2008 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Unfortunately Jimbo,
There isn’t enough quality talent for BOTH union & league, especially in Australia. I’m not fond of that word rationalisation, But I’se a see it a coming! Otherwise, i would agree with you.
jimbo said | November 4th 2008 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Sheek,
its not just about money is it?
Not sure about the lack of talent. We’ve won the world cup and are or have been the world’s best in both sports.
oikee said | November 4th 2008 @ 9:53am | Report comment
I was watching the hong kong game and what struck me the most was you have 2 many players, now all you would have to do is keep Union rules but drop 2 players, all that would do is have 2 less in the scrum i think that would work fine and get the 2 together.
International rules would be a good merger for soccer and rules, i just love this game and with a bit of tweaking it could be a smash hit.
Millster said | November 4th 2008 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
I don’t think football (soccer) is in need of a merger with anyone. You could put all other codes together and they would still be dwarfed by football.
That said IR is very cool and I’d like to see it happen somehow. Perhaps start with the AFL and GAA adopting common rules for more than the ‘one off’ series and go from there.
I think most pressing is a re-merger of the rugby codes. You’d unite the talent in the Pacific and in the broader UK, have a united nothern Aust sport to offset the Southern dominance of AFL. Plus some marginal benefits to the other participating countries. Most important is that you’d have one united common front and a product to offer those many people that kinda know there is ’something called rugby’ but don’t know the difference between union and league. And you’d get the best of the domestic league comps and the international footprint of union. Now I don’t know how to make the rules work and don’t pretend to know the fine details of either code enough to even make suggestions, but if it could happen it would be a formidable code.
Norm said | November 4th 2008 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
I’d like to see the Kangaroos take on the AFL International Rules team at International Rules. Game 1 in Melbourne televised on 7 & game 2 in Sydney on 9. Irish officials a must.
Millster said | November 4th 2008 @ 4:00pm | Report comment
I’d like to see the national team from any other sport take on the Socceroos at football [I've read many a time how 'easy' and 'soft' it is compared to AFL and the rugbies, so surely it shouldn't be hard for any of those other athletes...], with the prize being the undisputed right to the name “football” for the winning code
Spiro Zavos said | November 4th 2008 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
I think an interesting match would be the best RL and RU playing a game of SevensRugby. There is a bit of rucking etc that would favour the RU players, b ut not too much. And the lineout obviously. But no problem about scrums. This contest would expose the creative abilities of both sides and tell us something too about the different types of fitness the two codes require.
True Tah said | November 4th 2008 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Spiro,
would that best include the Kiwis/Fijians in 7s? Or are we talking about just Australians? We are shit at 7s anyway.
True Tah said | November 4th 2008 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
Millster,
make it more interesting…have a boxing match between the four codes…my money would be on Barry Hall cleaning up the contest.
Millster said | November 4th 2008 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
Hmmm… as a football fan I think not
I like Spiro’s idea, and as long as it wasn’t taken too seriously I also think you could include a team of appropriate volunteers from AFL. They’d be behind in the ball skills but would have the build and fitness for a 7s game I think
Joe FC said | November 4th 2008 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
There are some intriguing contests proposed here that would no doubt attract considerable interest. On a slightly more serious note however they do raise the issue of whether it is desirable to have Australian rep teams v Australian rep teams in a competition for bragging rights. I remember during World Series Cricket days when the “official” Aust team were being slaughtered by England and one of the newspapers carried a story that proposed a tri-nations type tournament with the World Series Australians taking on both the English and the “official” Aust eleven. Richie Benaud was strongly against the two Australian sides playing each other as he thought no good would come from such a match.
ren said | November 4th 2008 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
joe fc- in addition the days of AUstralia A competing in the ODI series every summer, once upon a time
Michael C said | November 4th 2008 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
Norm -
I like it.
especially the requirement for Irish officials. I’d love to see Lance Franklin and Greg Inglis on the same paddock playing the ’same game’…………..ah…………..sporting heaven that’d be. Billy Slater and Gary Ablett jnr, Cam Smith and Chris Judd………..how good would that be.
Norm said | November 4th 2008 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
the other “left field” idea I did have Michael C was for the Australian IR team to be drawn from the 4 football codes in OZ i.e. a soccer goalie plus maybe a striker (for the 6 point goals) and a couple of League & Union heavies for some solid tackling work to supplement the rest of the AFL sourced squad. Then a game for Syd/Bris.
Urbanonic said | November 5th 2008 @ 7:38am | Report comment
The idea of reducing the number of players in union is an old one. In fact, it’s been done. When the northern Brit clubs broke from Union in the great schism of 1895, the breakaways/flankers were soon dropped. But before this - after mob games when one village of 300 or so played another village of 300 or so - a version of rugby had been played for perhaps 100 years with as many as 30 or 40 men to a team. Then the number was reduced to 20 a side. It wasn’t until 1877 that the number was officially cut to 15. And I, for one, believe that Union would benefit by having less numbers on the field today.
And about that word, field: most of the rugby games played before 1850 or so were played in a country field, hence today’s correct name for where rugby is played. The word pitch seems to have been borrowed from English soccer, and in itself it’s a misnomer. The word pitch apparently stems from the Old English meaning “A place where a ball is thrown,” hence the correct use in cricket, and the incorrect use in rugby, or soccer for that matter, where a ball is kicked far more than it’s thrown.
Incidentally, League players have played Union players on several occasions. In the early 40’s, two games were played between League and Union players under Union rules. The Leaguies won both times. And then some years back - Sheek, Spiro, everybody, help me out here - two games were played, one under League rules, one under Union. And as I recall, the Leaguies ran up a bigger score playing Union rules than did the Union players playing League rules. Today’s Roos, with their slick passing and mobility would, I think, have the better of today’s stone-handed Wallabies.
Michael C said | November 5th 2008 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Norm -
it is though, the potential game framework around which to construct the basis for some form of multi-cross code play.
The other thing, everynow and then, have a look back in time - - - for each code, remember where they came from and why - at the time certain changes were or were not a good idea - - - because times change. Also, that hybrid Aust/US footy game that was trialled back during the war, and the discussions around a rugby/aust footy merger in the ’30s. Some of the ideas from those times may not have been all that bad.
Urbanonic -
the more players on the field in a defensively geared game - like Union - then it follows that the capacity to ‘find space’ and breakthrough defensive structures is reduced as players become more professional, better prepared, drilled etc. I presume the assumption would be that reducing players would free up play a bit more without having to overly tinker with rules.
oikee said | November 5th 2008 @ 9:38am | Report comment
Thats right M.C 13 being the perfect number as i see it. Just recently league tried a 11 man side in the under 20’s i think it was, did not work at all.13 in league has seen a little bit of stress because they were starting to complain about lack of tries,(you would not think this after seeing some score lines in the Mass Gathering) but as you have said as defence increases , tries are harder to come by. But 15 to me seems to be unions problem for lack of tries, could you imagine how many there would be if they tried this, it would be try feast.
Anyhow they are so stubborn it will never happen. I just finished watching that rules game again, it has merit. Still think with tinkering it would work just fine. Also like the idea of the league verse rules game, would love to see some of those league players getting to enjoy the high flying spectacle. This game suits 15 per side, it has more space.
Millster said | November 5th 2008 @ 9:54am | Report comment
MC - you touched on something that I was thinking last night when reading this thread. Imagine if the big US billionaires bought the NRL and aligned it with Gridiron… sure lots of downsides for traditionalists but thats a ‘merger’ that would throw the sporting landscape on its head…
Forgetmenot said | November 5th 2008 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
Correct me if im wrong, but is there not several versions of lacrosse in the world. They could merge into one sport, and create a major international sport.
Steffy said | November 6th 2008 @ 5:43am | Report comment
Urbanonic, rugby was essentially banned in the british armed forces for many years so rugby players who joined up played union - often with great success - in 1916/17 the Army Services union team which contained many rugby players won 25 of it’s 26 matches. During WW2 2 matches were played under union rules where one team was made up of rugby players and the other of union players - one game was played at Headingley and another at Odsal - the team of rugby players won both games despite few of them having much experience of union.
Interestingly during the committee stage of the Sports DIscrimination Bill in the early 90s the ARmy were quizzed as to why rugby was not an officially sanctioned sport in the british armed forces, the army rep said there was no demand for it. Since rugby was recognised as an official sport in the armed forces (1994) it has been one of the fastest growing sports in the services.
Michael C said | November 6th 2008 @ 5:50am | Report comment
Millster -
and that’s probably the possibility, that going forward, sports are the top end will be even more a commodity, and if a couple of billionaires team together………..can they effectively merge and create a ’super code’?
or, …………..will it be like ‘Supertramp’ or ‘Bad Company’, a little bit of nice stuff, but, in reality, a ’supergroup’ only in the marketing.
chris said | November 7th 2008 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Australia has 2 many footie codes and the strain is sarting to show on all 4 but which is to go.