One day there will only be Rugby
Roar Pro
By sheek, 11 Dec 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- NRL, Rugby League, Rugby Union
346 Have your say
No, I’m not suggesting the demise of any other football codes, just the coming together of rugby union and rugby league.
I have no doubt that at some point in the future, these two rugby codes will come together. Whether these two codes will merge in a roughly equal partnership with the ‘new’ rugby exhibiting characteristics of both codes, or as some suggest more likely, there is a hostile takeover of league by union, remains to be seen.
I’m not interested in getting into a hysterical frenzy over this, although no doubt some fans of each code will do so in any case.
I am fond of both union and league, with union being my greater love.
So I have no ulterior motive in suggesting this, other than a logical conclusion.
All the logical wisdom in my body says that at some point in the future, practical common sense, or rationalisation, or whatever you wish to call it, will decide the issue.
Whatever will be the trigger to bring the two rugby codes together, I don’t know, except that it will happen.
The first thing that both union and league fans need to accept is this – neither code is a fool-proof game. There is good and bad in both rugby codes at this point.
One possible trigger for change could be provided by broadcasters and sponsors who no longer find it economically viable to split their resources between two rugby codes.
The broadcasters and sponsors might unburden their concerns to both union and league, and ask them to seek common ground. If they fail to do so, the broadcasters and sponsors themselves would decide the fate of the two codes.
Another global financial crisis might accelerate the process.
A football World Cup in Australia might also provide an accelerant to the two rugby codes coming together.
Appreciating the potent power of world football, both union and league might realise they need to combine their resources if they wish to compete against the mighty reach of football.
Or the trigger could be something ridiculously simple we haven’t thought of as yet. But I have no doubt whatsoever that at some point in the future there will only be ‘rugby’.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (178)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (171)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales and France the early stars of the Six Nations (48)
- Barnes to lead Waratahs in first hitout
- Harris and Lucas in Reds No.10 audition
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (3)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (5)
- David Pocock: a skipper my Force teammates will fight for (17)
- Four changes to France Six Nations side (5)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (11)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (3)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (11)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (180)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (7)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- NRL, Rugby League, Rugby Union
ohtani's jacket said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:16am | Report comment
Sometimes when I’ve had too much to drink, I sit there silently for a while, turn to my friend and utter: “one day there will only be rugby.”
sheek said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:05am | Report comment
Thanks OJ,
I’ve come not to expect anything less from you…..
ohtani's jacket said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
I just thought the title was amusing.
A few years ago, there was some talk about the Warriors merging with the NZFU and players being shifted cross-code. I don’t recall the exact details, but the Herald ran a bunch of artciles about it.
The simple fact is that whoever has the power in such a merger will simply pillage the other code. If the ARU were to go bankrupt and merge with the NFL, the Wallabies and Super 14 teams would whittle away. It would be like when the ABA folded and the NBA absorbed the best of their players and franchises. The NRL would only do it to solidify their position v. AFL or football. They wouldn’t continue as separate entities, that’s for sure. More than likely, it would spell the death of Australian rugby.
Would the IRB even go for it? If you wound up having a rebel rugby competition, how long would it take for the Wallabies to be accepted back into the international community?
You never really explained why it will happen other than you feel it in your bones.
rugbyfuture said | December 12th 2009 @ 1:00am | Report comment
but a more common scenario, would be the opposite of the codes, the ARU, if they went bankrupt, would immediately be pimped out by the SANZAR and IRB communities, whereas the ARL have no real international backing, news ltd are pulling out support, and the clubs are given and demand too much money and power for it to survive if a catastrophy happened, although i doubt any would merge at all, theres just too much animosity
also, i believe the wallabies brand is probably stronger than the kangaroos brand, although the opposite can be said for the games themselves within australia
ohtani's jacket said | December 12th 2009 @ 1:59am | Report comment
If the ARU were to go bankrupt, it would be interesting whether SANZAR or the IRB would bail them out. The NZRU certainly don’t have the money to do so as they did at the end of the 70s. How about the Au govt or the private sector? You’d hope the IRB would give them a loan.
sheek said | December 12th 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
Last sentence above true – still tossing some ideas around in my head.
Haven’t reached the point where I feel I can adequately articulate those thoughts.
Seiran said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:42am | Report comment
Tell him he’s dreaming.
Only in Australia is there the risk to rugby health by competition with League.
In other rugby countries where league is played such as France, UK and NZ, league only survives in small pockets with rugby dominating much more territiory and having a much larger support base.
League in Australia is way too strong to want to join with Union and other large Union supporting countries such as Scotland, South Africa and Wales where league is practicaly non existant would be loath to consider a change of rules to make Rugby more league like.
As I said ‘Tell him he’s dreaming’.
Corey said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
That is true, the Rugby Union community is much more global than League but if we were to take a history lesson at some of the nations you proclaim only have small pockets you would be surprised to learn that League was dealt very harshly by its Union brothers. League was banned by the Vichy Regime in France after WWII, because Union wanted their money and resources (at the time League attracted more people than Union in France) and only in the 90′s did League become legal again- but they were given no compensation nor did the Union fraternity apologise. So League may not have the global footprint of Union, but all it takes is for someone in League to invest heavily (as the Union boys in Australia do) to make League a more prominent game internationally or nationally.
PastHisBest said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
I don’t see this as having any relevance to the original article.
Brett McKay said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
PHB, I suggest you don’t go near the VHS-Beta discussion below then…..
jus de couchon said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:39am | Report comment
The 2 codes have more in common than not . Firstly here in England neither can be described as soccer , which i s a good starting point . There is a respect between opposing players and fans in both. Somehow some kind of an alliance might be formed for the benifit of League and Union. A first step may be League adopting Unions realistic International aspirations rather than their ongoing reinventions.
Brett McKay said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:20am | Report comment
“The 2 codes have more in common than not” – well yeah, one derived from the other…
LT80 said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:59am | Report comment
Not really, both derived from a common origin.
Mad Dog said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
One stole the game from the other when they couldn’t get their own and then continued to pillage it to the point of near extinction. The codes will never become one. There is too much blood that has been spilled to ever make that work.
BTW, there is only one ‘Rugby’ anyway…just ask the rest of the world.
Ken said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:17am | Report comment
Stole the game? pillaged to near extinction? How about trying some hyperbole next time to liven it up a little!
BTW I don’t have to ask the rest of the world, I’m quite sure there are 2 rugby codes. If the ‘rest of the world’ doesn’t know that then they should really be the ones asking for advice.
Sam el Perro said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
“One stole the game from the other when they couldn’t get their own and then continued to pillage it to the point of near extinction.”
In 1894 a number of clubs were playing under one umbrella. In 1895 a number of clubs left to start a new competition. It was still, at that point, the same game being played under two umbrellas.
Over time the RFU and RFL changed their rules, and the two games evolved from that common point. It is unhelpful to rewrite history with hindsight and suggest that one game was “stolen”.
formeropenside said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Northern Union, anyone?
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 4:04am | Report comment
Must be the off season.
katzilla said | December 11th 2009 @ 6:01am | Report comment
‘I am fond of both union and league, with union being my greater love. ‘
I’m with you Sheek on the love of both, but the politics alone make it impossible. It’s about as likely as North and South Korea becoming just ‘Korea’
Who would run it? The IRB will never give up their power base and I dare say the League bosses wouldn’t either.
sheek said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Well Katzilla,
In my essay, I mentioned it will either be a merger or takeover – that would be the first thing to consider. How that might happen remains to be seen.
BTW, South & North Korea will eventually come together. Maybe not in out lifetime, but eventually. In any case, over time, different nations emerge to replace others.
Ken said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
I can’t a merger because neither set of fans will swallow it
I can’t see a takeover because neither side has the power. There is no scenario I can imagine where Union could takeover League in a sense of inheriting it’s major competitions (NRL and ESL) and it’s administrations.
Natural attrition would be the only other scenario but neither code is going anywhere. Even if the doomsdayers are correct and League is on it’s last legs every but Australia, it wouldn’t change the fact that it’s solid as a rock here. I don’t subscribe to that anyway since the Brits have a popular (if not dominant), professional, expanding competition that’s been around for more than 100 years. Union is still dominant in NZ but league gets a much better run there than it did in decades past too.
To put a perspective around my point of view I’m kind of flip side of your description. I like both codes but league is my home.
Hayden said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Try Christians, Jews and Muslims.
rugbyfuture said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
same thing was said about west and east germany
anopinion said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Germany was split by external powers, Soviets and Allies. Korea was split by internal factions that would not agree on the best governmental model. This internal split was then enhanced by foreign powers. Thus I think Korea is an appropriate analogy and Germany is not.
Crosscoder said | December 11th 2009 @ 6:03am | Report comment
Won’t happen ,the new ARL commission will see to that,and the continued growth of the game.Plus global warming, of course.
stillmissit said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Yeah right! the day is just around the corner where we will be watching rugby in July in our swimmers. Crossy mate there is a place where you can get deprogrammed.
rugbyfuture said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
if the new arl commision is able to sustain a better financial profile than the current NRL administration, i may be a rugby union zealot but i think its pretty obvious there have been financial problems throughout the nrl that havent been fixed
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
As if the Waratahs and Reds haven’t both been bailed out by the ARU since RU went pro.
anopinion said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
Rugby has only been professional for 14 years, League has had a century to work out a viable financial model.
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
Rugby league has had fulltime contracted players for as long as rugby union. League before Super League was semi-pro at best.
cookie said | December 11th 2009 @ 6:57am | Report comment
Perhaps with rugby coming into the olympics we’ll see an increase in players and followers worldwide which should lead to an increase in Aust…. but given how poor the aru admin is I doubt they’d capitalise on it…
I’ll state my position…. I can’t stand league for the love of my life…. It’s the most boring mindless drivel… It’s the most overhyped load of crap…. poor skills, poor defence, I mean christ they run at each other literally 5m direct, hard to miss a tackle?
You always know the league season is still on when the news reports the sexual assualts and god knows what else, but not that much about the actual games….
It seems the worse they perform off the field the more popular it becomes…..
If it wasn’t for Kerry Packer….. i suspect league wouldn’t enjoy anywhere near the following it has
Ken said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
By your own admission, that’s not exactly a non-biased position – especially since the current headlines are talking about a current Wallabies arrest for burglury (funnily enough despite him being in the national team it hasn’t received the same publicity as a lower grade RL player would here in Sydney).
Beyond that though, I must admit I’ve never understood the point of view of someone who loves Union and hates League or vice versa. The best parts of both games are similar the running, strength, speed, evasion, passing, tackling. Having a preference sure, hating one while loving the other – don’t get it. I’ve always assumed it to be an irrational hatred (bogan vs private school boy stereotypes?)
Re: Kerry Packer, seems a strange comment, RL was the most popular code in this neck of the woods long before Kerry Packer was even born. Actually, if anything, the most dominant years were before he wielded influence
rugbyfuture said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
well kerry did go to cranbrook, the losers of the private school rugby union world i agree that they both have skills, but league is less diversified, whilst union needs different people with different skills and body types
Lindommer said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Kerry Packer went to Geelong Grammar where he played for the school’s First XV.
rugbyfuture said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
sorry, my mistake, his son went to cranbrook
MyGeneration said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
I’m with you Ken. I can understand having a preference for one or the other, but there’s more similarities than differences. I think the haters on both sides need to get a life.
Ziggy the God said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Nice spray.
Pity it is as relevant these days as the Wallabies on FTA, no one cares.
To Sheek,
I cannot see a merger in my lifetime.
Cheers
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
the olympics is huge for rugby. its something the mungos will never have
Ken said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
We’ll see, it’s not like rugby is actually being played at the olympics – it’s seven’s – fun but a bit of a sideshow. Actual full games of hockey are played in the olympics and have been for a very long time and it’s not like it generates huge passion, interest, dollars in many countries even during the Olympics.
I’m not convinced by the other argument that previously uninterested countries will now pour mega $ into rugby sevens either to get up the table in the Olympics, there’s only 1 gold medal available. For all that effort there will be a number of athletes in swimming and athletics that will get multiple gold medals individually.
John Ryan said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:04pm | Report comment
They did an interview in Melbourne about who won Medals at the Olympics,I think one person managed to name one,rugby shugby lets be honest no one will care its only sevens, and they did try 15 a side and axed it
macavity said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
hatred, ignorance, paranoia, prejudice, stupidity, blasphemy
that post really had everything!
person said | December 18th 2009 @ 11:55am | Report comment
news limited’s babysitting of league has definately inflated it’s position. had it not been given so much media coverage over the years it’d be quite different
turfwars said | December 28th 2009 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
so bloody true and now they are opting out? why?
Hobart said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:01am | Report comment
One area league and union might get together on is the Olympics. Now that sevens is on the agenda, an Oz team comprised of players from both codes would be pretty strong.
Anybody want to suggest seven starters if the Olympics were held next month? Try four from league and three from union and/or four from union and three from league.
Justin said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Wont happen, sorry.
AndyS said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Really – even though Michael O’Connor has been on record as saying that it might well happen and that they could even cast their nets as wide as AFL?
Justin said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
They would have to be Union players. They cant play league and Union at the same time, so no it wont happen.
AndyS said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Why? It is the AOC that will ultimately decide who is in the Olympic team and, if the ARU starts excluding potential 7s players simply because they are not registered 15s players, I would expect the AOC to start turning the screws.
Justin said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
Ah no the AOC will leave that to the host sporting body being the ARU. Do they pick the swim team, the soccer team, the aths team? No, so why would 7s be an different? Just because you think it would be a better team doesnt mean the AOC will agree and thus take up the selecting of the squad.
AndyS said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
I would certainly expect that while the AOC wouldn’t pick the swim team, they would have something to say if there were swimmers with demonstrable talent and an interest being excluded from the team on simply administrative grounds. But to clarify, I don’t think it would necessarily be a better team, I am simply saying that the AOC will want to see that it is the best possible team for their money.
Sam el Perro said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
There is a precedent for a cross-code sevens team. In the 2002 Commonwealth Games England chose a league player who had never played union before.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/commonwealthgames2002/hi/rugby_7s/newsid_2082000/2082326.stm
Siva Samoa said | December 16th 2009 @ 7:42pm | Report comment
The guy has just switch to rugby union before the Commonwelth Games so that made a rugby player not league.
Brian said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
You’ll have to excuse my haziness on union players but I would suggest the three most athletic backrowers in the Wallabies (Waugh, Smith, ?) + a backline of Inglis, Slater, Jennings and Hayne might go alright. Gold medal I reckon.
macavity said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
no way in the world Aus is getting near a 7s gold medal without league players.
no way in the world is any other nation getting close if our league players are included
Justin said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Ah rubbish and ah rubbish.
Siva Samoa said | December 16th 2009 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
League players will struggle in 7′s.
anopinion said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
Hynes, Ioane, Shepard, Giteau, Pokock, Palu, Elsom. This team would be ok. However, rarely are the best 15′s players also the best 7′s players. Waisale Serevi for example was the best 7′s player but not a standout in the 15 man version of the game.
JimC said | December 11th 2009 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
Well, Serevi was the best 7s player – until Henry Paul showed up and England won the HK7s again and again and again……
Jerry said | December 11th 2009 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
More to the point, Serevi was the best of the guys that stayed playing 7′s. For all the talk that 7′s is a specialist game, the fact is the likes of Christian Cullen and Jonah Lomu were even more effective at 7′s than they were at XV’s. If 7′s was the main form of union, Serevi and Eric Rush would still be good, but wouldn’t be the legends that they are.
Gary said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:01pm | Report comment
David (Bam) Pockock is the name your trying to remember.
Aljay said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
No. In sevens there is even more emphasis than a full game on backs needing to know how to ruck and maul. You can’t learn that is a few training sessions. There is nowhere to hide on a sevens field, bringing league players across would be a good way to lose.
JimC said | December 11th 2009 @ 6:01pm | Report comment
Utter rubbish, whole teams of league players have won union sevens competitions without so much as a by your leave. Anyone who says Inglis wouldn’t be better at 7s than any of the current wallabies is stark, raving, bonkers.
anopinion said | December 11th 2009 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
Inglis would be good along with Slater, not better than Ioane.
Brett McKay said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:18am | Report comment
hysterical frenzy, hysterical frenzy, HYSTERICAL FREEEEENNNZZZZZYYYYY!!!!
Interesting Sheek, I will give you that. But I also like Katzilla’s analogy of the Koreas too, that probably best sums up my thoughts curently.
That all said, I can’t rule out a coming together, but probably later rather than sooner….
sheek said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Brett,
Up to the beginning of September 2001, most people would have laughed hilariously at any suggestion of the twin towers in New York collapsing due terrorist suicide attacks in passenger jet aircraft.
Sporting-wise, not too many people saw super league coming either. Nor do I believe the super league people ever seriously imagined they would directly, or indirectly accelerate the professionalism of union.
We can’t ignore how ’cause & effect’ will impact on any event. The worst thing we can do is have a closed mind on these things.
Brett McKay said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
quite true Sheek, and I can’t rule it out completely, as I said. Spiro raises some interesting point below though as well.
In the end though, if we could see the future clearly, I wouldn’t have needed to write yesterday’s column
sheek said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Brett,
It’s tough being a wanna-be sage….. plenty of people lining up to knock you down!
On the other hand, as a workmate says – “if you’re not living on the edge, you’re taking up too much space”!!!
Spiro Zavos said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:24am | Report comment
Following up on Hobart, the Australian Women’s Sevens side won the inaugural World Championship last year by co-opting several very good touch football players. With rugby in the Olympics I think that the code has another lure for great league stars who are tempted to come across to the dark side with the offer of Olympic representation before going on to play for a Super 15 side.
I believe the IRB would forbid the use of league stars who haven’t made the switch.
The problem with the two rugby codes becoming one is a bit theological, a bit like Catholicism (rugby union) and Protestanism (rugby league) ever coming together.
The main principle of rugby union is that as far as possible there is a contest for the ball.
The main principle of rugby league is that as far as possbile the main contest is between players with the ball, especially now that contesting the ruck has been removed from the game.
So the distinctive features of rugby union as contrasted with rugby league are the contested scrums, lineouts and contested rucks and mauls.
If you take these contests away, as happens when there are the occasional un-contested scrums situation in rugby union, you get the rugby league game. But if you leave them in, you get the rugby union game.
All the hybrid rugby games tend to be either lite versions of rugby union or lite versions of rugby league.
There is a tendency though for rugby union to evolve more towards the rugby league model, which makes sense as the rugby league code evolved from rugby league. And I think in time we will see a 14-person rugby union game.
The NZRU proposed this to the IRB in 1939 but other matters took the attention of the world. The NZRU model was seven forwards and seven backs. It also proposed a 2-3-2 scrum, the diamond scrum, that the 1905 All Blacks and other All Black sides used successfully up to its abolition by the IRB in 1931 when rugby law preference was given to the South African invention of the 3-4-1 scrum. Presumably, too, the IRB could trial a 3-4 scrum to keep a contest in this area.
As for rugby league, I see it evolving more towards touch football, with monster tackles replacing the touch injunction.
There is the distinct possibility too that the 13-person concept will be replaced by a team of 11, rugby onze as the French might say. I think Warren Ryan advocates this.
In the future, too, rugby league will I think evolve away from the original rugby game along the lines of gridiron. There will be no contest for the ball at the scrimmage but man-on-man contests once the ball is in play.
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Spiro – just becuase you keep saying thatin rugby union “as far as possible there is a contest for the ball” doesn’t mean it is so.
Brian Moore last week: “Following a survey which highlighted the breakdown retention rate of 95 per cent in the 2007 World Cup final (over that tournament as a whole it was 92 per cent).”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/6744502/International-Rugby-Board-ignoring-evidence-of-a-game-in-turmoil.html
RU may look like a contest, but it is barely more of contest for the ball than league is. In AFL and soccer there is a contest for the ball.
Sam said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
95%? That is the equivalent of 19 phases without losing possession. When was the last time anyone saw that? Pretty rare I think.
anopinion said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
I think you will find quite a lot of effort goes into maintaining a hold of the ball in the tackle. Because the opponent is trying to take it away. Thus a contest for the ball.
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:54am | Report comment
“bit like Catholicism (rugby union) and Protestanism (rugby league) ever coming together”
exactly. one is a cheap derivative of the other
MyGeneration said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Or one is a return to the simpler roots of the bloated, corrupted other. Depends which way you look at it really.
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
i prefer my self righteous view.
Corey said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
I think one is a derivative of Roman mythology and BIblical truths, while the other is more based on biblical truths, but thats not what this debate is about (I study theology so don’t get me started), but I think Rugby League will evolve into a more aggressive style of Rugby, it gives room for tackles to have impact (look at the English Super League for that) and it gives more room for a spread of the ball, again the ESL is a better example of this.
AndyS said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Spiro,
While you say “I believe the IRB would forbid the use of league stars who haven’t made the switch”, I am not sure that the IRB could do any such thing. It is not the IRB that will be sending teams to the Olympics, it will be the national Olympic bodies and they can get those teams in any manner they like. While it will make logistic sense for them to do so via administrative bodies such as the ARU, it wouldn’t have to be the case. All they will care about is that it is demonstrably the best team possible for their funding dollar and I can’t see them being happy about excluding interested athletes just because they are not members of an organisation whose primary focused isn’t even Sevens. Go down that path and I’d expect the pressure to come on to make administration of Sevens functionally separate from 15s.
Justin said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
When was the last time the AOC picked an athlete from outside a sport to participate in the Olympics. It aint gonna happen. How could the AOC force the ARU to pick someone? They are not rugby experts and I would suggest they will entrust the ARU to choose and prepare the team. The ARU will never choose a league player who isnt playing Union. Why would they when we have seen they are two different sports no matter what people say are similarities there are large differences too.
AndyS said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
How could they force them – maybe by making nearly $10M in funding contingent on them being more inclusive? To quote the AOC themselves (http://corporate.olympics.com.au/files/38/HPP_Addendum_October2009_GolfandRugby_final.pdf):
“Several nations are now emerging as threats as the game of 7s becomes more internationally recognised. Kenya, Portugal and the USA are some of the emerging teams that are progressing rapidly……”
“These countries are also now physically preparing their players specifically for the game of 7’s. Understanding the distinct physiological differences required to play 7’s rugby as compared to the 15 man game….”
“The high performance programs primarily focus on the 15 a side form of the Game, although there are 7s World Cups and World Series events….”
“The focus of the current national pathway on the 15 a side game will need to be adjusted to include the 7s program and specific programs for the 7 a side game.”
So what I would see is a push toward separate administration. It might still be under the nominal control of the ARU to maintain the IRB accreditation and access to the international 7s tour, but the requirement to be playing 15s will go and players will play 7s as though it was a stand-alone sport. Certainly, that would tie in with O’Connors statements about casting the net wider in the search for athletes. They won’t be from outside the sport – they’ll be in the 7s program and probably engaged in it full time.
Justin said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
They already do treat it as a stand alone sport. There is a grand prix circuit for 7s that goes all around the world, to each continent, and the players are prepared to play 7s not 15s. They are different games and treated as such, although the Aus squad has a very large youth component to it.
You are going on a whim when it has never happened before and with no evidence to back up your argument.
AndyS said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
So you are saying that, while the Australia 7s coach says that they will be casting their nets wider and looking to League and perhaps even AFL for athletes, and the AOC (soon to be the major funding source and the eventual customer) says that they expect the ARU to adjust their programs to remove the emphasis on 15s, the ARU will in fact only ever consider players if they are signed up as 15s players.
Maybe you are right, time will tell. But in my experience the bloke who controls the money will ultimately call the shots. But in terms of evidence I’d've said I’ve supplied more than simply saying “Never happened before, so it’ll never ever happen”. Times change.
Justin said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Andy – If they havent crossed from league how could they play? Thats what it comes down to really. There has to be selection criteria, that you must agree, and surely one is to be a rugby union player, 7s or 15s.
They may cast the net wider but I think you will find they will be getting them with an eye to a few years in the game before an Olympics. They wont play league the year before or of the Olympics.
Now the other side of the coin is that it hasnt happened with the Comm Games (essentially the same countries competing).
What would the NRL say about players jumping ship for a year? Clubs would be screaming wouldnt they? It would make a mockery of the sport if every 4 years a bunch of players said see you in 12 months.
AndyS said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
Yes, as I see it there will no longer be any “crossing” from anywhere – players will be 7s players and that is all they’ll be. Olympic sports aren’t a casual part-time thing and the players won’t be playing League in the year before, or 15s, or anything else. They will be 7s players, paid to play fulltime and where they first came from will be irrelevant.
And you are right, it didn’t happen for the Comm Games. At the same time, there was no Comm Games committee pumping money into the sport and expecting to see the best possible team as a result. What I found curious in that case was that they didn’t pick their 7s specialists, which perhaps reflected a view that 7s is not as serious or demanding. It is that attitude that the AOC clearly wants done away with, expecting a similar level of commitment as other Olympic sports.
JimC said | December 11th 2009 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
Perhaps national trial games could be conducted for those interested. One or two union players might even make the team. Elsom maybe.
oikee said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Arh Spiro, you love this dont you, cheers. A couple of points you made i have already on previous blogs knocked on the head. You say. Point 1
With rugby in the Olympics I think that the code has another lure for great league stars who are tempted to come across to the dark side with the offer of Olympic representation before going on to play for a Super 15 side.
Not true, with people watching and enjoying the 7′s, do you really think deep down they will enjoy the Bog fest 15′s puts up.
I said they will move to rugby league after 7′s. we will see who is right.
Point 2. you said
I believe the IRB would forbid the use of league stars who haven’t made the switch.
The NRL is moving forward with a commission, and growing the game overseas, we really dont care what the IRB says, and our players will come back to rugby league once we grow our wages, way beyond what union can pay.
Point3 you said
The problem with the two rugby codes becoming one is a bit theological, a bit like Catholicism (rugby union) and Protestanism (rugby league) ever coming together.
I am a Catholic, so was all my Sheep farming pioneers, and i am going down to excuminacate myself from this mob, it is what i call, clensing my soul from evil. If i believed that crap.
Point 4 you said
The main principle of rugby union is that as far as possible there is a contest for the ball.
The main principle of rugby league is that as far as possbile the main contest is between players with the ball, especially now that contesting the ruck has been removed from the game.
So the distinctive features of rugby union as contrasted with rugby league are the contested scrums, lineouts and contested rucks and mauls
Rugby league has already evolved into a better game, and is nearing perfection, hence crowd numbers last year, wait until you see whats installed for this year. We are now growing memberships, already a target of 10 thousand for each club, You going to try to stop us. ? Thought not.
Point 5 you said
All the hybrid rugby games tend to be either lite versions of rugby union or lite versions of rugby league.
There is a tendency though for rugby union to evolve more towards the rugby league model, which makes sense as the rugby league code evolved from rugby league. And I think in time we will see a 14-person rugby union game.
League quickly trailled a 11 man game, not successful, and i mentioned the other day, if Union ever, ever goes to 13 a side , league has won, so you mentioned 14, ??? Now thats just being hopeful.
Point 6 You said
As for rugby league, I see it evolving more towards touch football, with monster tackles replacing the touch injunction.
There is the distinct possibility too that the 13-person concept will be replaced by a team of 11, rugby onze as the French might say. I think Warren Ryan advocates this.
In the future, too, rugby league will I think evolve away from the original rugby game along the lines of gridiron. There will be no contest for the ball at the scrimmage but man-on-man contests once the ball is in play.
Again no, we tried 11 not as good as 13, rugby league has evolved and Gridiron is already a force, neither need make changes, but they like what they see for rugby league, Cheers, enjoy your day.
Sam said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
As soon as you said rugby league is near perfection I stopped reading. Seriously, what a thing to say – no sport is near perfection.
Peter Piper said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Does anyone read a post when Oikee writes them? Honestly, the same old dribble every day! Are you sure you are not Phil Gould in disguise?
Time to pack up the keyboards boys. Any constructive debate is sure to be shouted down now that Oikee is online.
anopinion said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:48pm | Report comment
Did you really say RL is nearing perfection? Really? I read your entire post and thought that was your best bit.
rugbyfuture said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
wow, what a great anaology of rugby as religion, reminds me of an article i wrote
turfwars said | December 28th 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Spiro , I recon you are dead right about the league bit.
Its happening now going more gridioron. Just look at whats happened so far
2 refs soon to be wired up for live telecast of law interpretations,
3 in the replay box, two touch judges, 4 quarters(watch this one it will happen with the indig game)
big sponsors of gatorade drink cans like NFL
line marking to change in some small way to start with. unlimited change overs. what happened to players playing for the full game??
second chances at scoring trys , position moves like in the old Parramatta days of Jack Gibson- flying wedge and players being allowed to jump over other players .
I hear Wayne Bennant stated the rules would change in a newspaper not long ago and if you read his books is a fan of the NFL system and coaching methods
rugbyfuture said | December 28th 2009 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
Rugby welcomes those disgruntled leagueys with open arms