By sheek
December 11th 2009 @ 1:22am
Loading ...Related coverage
One day there will only be Rugby
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’.
(346)
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
sheek said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Spiro,
Good to see constructive debate. I know it’s a shock for people to have their core belief system rattled.
To me, it’s incongruous the two rugby codes won’t merge/takeover at some point. As I’ve mentioned, the way it might happen is not yet known to us.
Years ago, the VHS versus Beta analogy was used. Technically, Beta videos weren’t any worse than VHS, but the industry simply went with one in favour of the other (I can’t recall exactly the why’s & how’s). I think money (business world) might decide the issue eventually, not the two bodies themselves or their fans.
I do take the possibility of league becoming more gridiron-like, which I’ve suggested at different times previously. Basically, league will have to move one way or the other, I think. It will depend largely on what they intend to do with the scrum.
Brett McKay said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
So Sheek, perhaps the Union-League divide is Blu-Ray v HD-DVD
sheek said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Yeah, that’s interesting too…..
Monty said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Brett, Sheek
Ive heard that the winner of the Blu-Ray vs HD DVD is determined by who the adult film industry sides with (apparently this was how the Beta vs VHS war was decided (ahem….not that I would know)). Interesting if it is true…..
Monty
Corey said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Well BluRay have stated that they will not produce Adult Films (as Sony is the major producer of BluRay and are a “family-friendly” business) yet it looks like, and the tech-heads confirm, that BluRay will win out. But I would like to see this other promotion that was touted a while ago, Half a game of RU and half a game of League, at Suncorp, between Aus and NZ. So the All Blacks vs the Wallabies than the Kangaroos vs the Kiwis. Supposedly it would generate 5mill. for each code.
pothale said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Actually the VHS/Betamax analogy is interesting. I used to work in the TV/video industry when these formats were brought to market.
Sony supposedly had the superior tape and superior machines, but their tapes would only record for an hour. JVC’s VHS tapes and machines had lower quality but longer recording times – enough to capture a full-length movie.
Sony misread the market and stayed aloof to capture the elite end of the market. JVC got down and dirty – rather than keep their technology to themselves they allowed other brands to badge their product and swamp the market. They had 80% of it by the mid-eighties, and Sony Betamax – supposedly the better technology and superior format – was dead in the water. Interestingly, it dragged on and on through the nineties and was only stopped in production in Asian markets about 7 or eight years ago.
Now people can decide for themselves which Rugby code fits Betamax and which fits VHS.
Better quality but not enough duration to satisfy consumers, versus lower quality but longer-lasting which kept the consumers coming in droves.
rugbyfuture said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
in any case, beta was supposed to be better than vhs and hd dvd was supposed to be better than blu-ray, the ones that won however, won because they supported the porn industry
slagger knocker said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
The porn industry by and large went with VHS and the rest is history.
Roger said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Bravo sheek, a pity some others cant see the wood for the trees, although poking the mungo bloggers into a frenzy must have been fun for you.
anopinion said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Beta was considered technologically superior. Lost out due to a few reasons. Porn was only on VHS, VHS had longer recording abilities and most importantly, because VHS was simpler it was cheaper. Thus in the end the people chose not the best product, but rather the one that met their needs for movies, porn and inexpensive.
cookie said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:52am | Report comment
What were the Kiwi’s smoking in 1929?
A 2-3-2 scrum takes out the whole drive of it…
Spiro… i suspect the 15 man game has the right balance…. The No. 8 has a rather specific role
Can someone start a petition for league to axe the scrum…… I mean take it out of the game completely and simply have a quick tap….. The whole notion of front rower in league is pathetic.
Barking Glider….. sure those figures may or may not be accurate but as spiro points out the ball is ‘contestable’ whereas league it basically is not….
Simplest example would be…..
Rugby…. Ball carrier tackled must release the ball…. therefore must consider positional and support play or lose it….
League… Ball carrier is a protected species…. not only doesn’t have to worry about positional nor support play he can hold onto it and better still the defence is not allowed to touch the ball…. What a joke!
This is what we are talking about when we talk about contesting the ball…. the ball is still in play regardless of the attacking teams retention rate.
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
So you agree. RU may look like a contest, but it isn’t.
AC said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
No mate, in social rugby it’s definitely a contest. At professional level, less so purely because the execution is better. At all levels in League the ball carrier is a protected species.
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Who cares about social rugby when we’re discussing a merger of the two professional codes? I stand by what I said.
AndyS said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:05pm | Report comment
I’d disagree BG – there may be a high retention rate but the players have to work to make sure that is the case. If they don’t, they’ll lose the ball. It is a contest where the execution is under constant examination, failures are punished, but at the top level the execution is largely secure. It isn’t just given to them provided they can simply hold on to it.
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
This logic sounds like it belongs in an episode of Seinfeld. It’s a contest, but 95% of the time it has the same result.
AndyS said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Because if it wasn’t a contest, it would be 100% the same result with the ball being turned over every time. What we certainly don’t have is no contesting for the ball, but it is still retained.
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
50/50 is a contest. 95% times I don’t lose, or 1 in 20 you win, that is called a “chance” not a contest.
In any case, the trend is upward. You’ll soon enough be at 100% just to rid the game of all the penalties the so called “contest” brings.
PastHisBest said | December 14th 2009 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Wrong BG. You’re talking about the result. Even if there is a chance that you can get the ball you have a contest. Are you saying that lotto isn’t a contest just because you only have a 1 in 42 gazillion chance of winning?
katzilla said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
It Basically gives you 4 loosies cookie. Bad enough the damage 2-3 Loosies can do but imagine Pocock and George Smith both on one side of the scrum and breaking out into a back line?
Elsom and Palu on the Blindside.
oikee said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:12pm | Report comment
Arh Cookie mate, if you had to go flatout all game, i think you would love a 20 second break at the scrum. Yes, we all know its dead, but it gives big forwards who put their bodies on the line for fans, a chance to get 2 breaths of air into their lungs.
Now, if you dont believe me, go do 5 quick laps of the pool, and dont stop mate, your playing rugby league, not tiddly winks,.
LT80 said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
“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.”
Sorry mate, total fiction.
The main principle of both games is running with the ball in hand, toward the opposition try line. This plus a couple of other rules such as that passes must be thrown backwards and players must remain on-side, is what defines both games against other types of football.
Rugby union is only a contest for the ball in limited situations, and in most of these situations the rules are skewed to give the team in possession the advantage. Australian rules is far closer to a continous contest for possession.
Justin said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
True, limited situations such as kick-offs, rucks, line outs scrums, bombs.
LT80 said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Exactly.
Sam said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Spiro is right. It is the main principle. The other main principle of the game is that it is one for all shapes and sizes. Running with ball in hand is definitely not a principle of the game – otherwise England, the birthplace of the game, wouldn’t play the way they do. Every situation is a contest for possession, the set pieces, kick-offs, tackle and post-tackle (breakdown). The only place where the contest doesn’t exist very much is in the maul.
Onceinawhile said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
How long can you stand around looking forwards and backwards after you take a mark in AFL, me thinks football is the only true contest for possession
stillmissit said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
I agree with you Sheek. THis must happen at some point in the future, maybe globalisation will bring this about. I can see a time where a sport that doesn’t have global appeal to major manufacturers will receive little or nothing and will remain a local oddity.
For all we jump up and down about Murdoch and his money in sport, he jumps up and down about Niki et al. Look for the source of the money and you find the power.
cookie said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Sheek…
Your probably right… at the end of the day money decides pretty much everything…. Just look at the crap we are spoon fed on tele….. movies and all sorts of absolute garbage that few if any want to watch….
The free to air channels have vested interests in league and afl thus we a being force fed particularly afl in nsw that few if anyone gives a stuff about…
Just because the tv is showing it doesn’t mean anyone is necessarily watching it….
Having said that money doesn’t necessarly mean sucess…. basketball, baseball and gridiron tried that avenue years ago and failed miserably… only basketball enjoyed mediocre success in the early 90’s but look at it now…
What Rugby has is it is already a global game and now that its in the olympics more so…. Then the money side well more of that overall not to mention many countries will now pour more funds towards the olympic teams and game in general….
Business wise…. I’d rather invest in a global game with much more appeal than some backwater load of trash…
I wouldn’t dismiss the ‘local phsych’ as I’ve mentioned before… what one grows up with …one will usually have more affilliation with.
Thus Rugby really needs to start promoting itsself Aust wide properly from the ground up and take a leaf or two out of afl/arl marketing books…
oikee said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Cookie, do you run a bussiness,? and Gilette and Rexona along with other massive companies world wide, Proton, Toyota, Ford, Holden, Harvey Nowman, xxxx VB, the list goes on, all sponser that so called crap, because they are bussiness savy.
Trust me mate, the sponsers are now off the leash for rugby league, and all the old boys are dieing off, so union is up against more than a dead duck in the water. Rugby league at top level, NRL, Kangaroos is what people want, you will see.
Cheers. If you cant see the product is a winner, thats not my worry, my concern is a commission, not worrying about rules or Crowds,. Crowds will eventually come. As will x-mas. And have a merry one. cheers.
As for rugby union promoting itself to the OZ public, ? thought it has the last 100 years, ? And the public is voting with their feet, wonder what happens when the Europeon public do the same, rugby league is only getting warmed up now the shackles are off.
Roger said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
Oikee, have a look outside Sydney and Brisbane mate, its certainly not all all roses for RL. Sydney And Brisbane are an anomoly compared to all other nations which have these two sports. Lets not pretend otherwise…
Mick of Newie said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
Spiro
the move to 11 a side in league died when the 10 metre rule came in. League currently has it right in terms of number of tries scored in a match (even though too many come from kicks).
Unions defensive structures where forwards are not required to join the ruck or maul and a league type defensive line is set up is in my view the cause of many of the furstrations with union. Too much kicking os not the problem in union but the symptom of the difficulty of breaking the line and the punishment for transgressions being too harsh.
League and Union provide good evidence of cause and effect for rule changes, reducing players in union to 13 would be an option but I am sure some will come up with others. Has 13 a side ever been tried in union? If not is the sole reason the entrenched hatred of the other 13 a side game.
Cookie the league scrums serves a useful purpose, it allows an attacking option where there isn’t 12 blokes evenly spread accross the field. An early spread of the ball can see a greg inglis or a jarred hayne go one on one against a defender. Both codes should look for more options to create these sort of situations.
The Link said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
mick – they trialled an 11 a side game in Toyota Cup last year. Its still on the fringes, but it has some key supporters in the game like Ricky Stuart and Warren Ryan.
PastHisBest said | December 14th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Only because Ricky’s teams can’t score tries with 13 a-side…
Springs said | December 14th 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
They had an 11-a side cup back in the 30s, it didn’t work out.
M1tch said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:21am | Report comment
I doubt the codes will ever merge..the northern hemisphere hate the proposed rule changes, they would rather union die than merge with the ‘other’ rugby.
France wouldnt let it happen..
Who Needs Melon said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Ah. Here’s your problem: “at some point in the future, practical common sense, or rationalisation, or whatever you wish to call it, will decide the issue”. Nothing is ever decided using “practical common sense” – it’s the rarest commodity on Earth!
sheek said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Melon,
You may right. My entire argument might unravel on the assumption that logical, practical common sense will have anything to do with it!!!
oikee said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
Sheek, we have been surviving for 100, i dont think we will ever see a merge, not now, rugby league is starting to get warmed up, and the people, ozzies are loving what they see, the only merger will be 7’s union, to league 13, the 15 man game is slowly killing itself now, with 7’s, this process will quicken the death. Trust me, i know what i talk about, i warned you in a 7’s post months ago.
Always enjoyed the wrestling, now thats entertainment.
Rugby league is the ultimate modern day battle of gladators and whippets and small men with skills, we have reached the point of no return, the people have spoken. The final process is now being fought with a commission, which will put us onto another level, why do you think players are returning to league, they know what the future holds, Bird, classic case, could have earned 1 million in france, playing now for 100 thousand, go figure.
My classic line, its coming brother, sorry, hulksters line,.
Glen said | December 12th 2009 @ 12:34am | Report comment
Yep Oikee, league has survived 100 years but it has not moved anywhere.
Name one (just one) country where league is now a major game that didn’t play it even 25 years ago. No, better still name one country anywhere in the world where league is the no 1 code! There’s a thousand bucks in it for you! Good Luck!
It is a small force in the North of England, a MINOR, minor sport in France, a minor sport in NZ and South Africa have just given up.. they don’t even field a team anymore.
It’s played by a few home-sick 45 year old expats in the US and Japan and a couple of toothless old women somewhere in the Ukraine. More players join European, South American and Japanese clubs rugby clubs each year than the entire intake of the NRL. Get a grip man…
Come on mate… just 1 country… can’t be that hard!
Adrian said | December 12th 2009 @ 5:05am | Report comment
Papua New Guinea, let me know when you’d like to send that $1000 to me
Glen said | December 12th 2009 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
Sorry mate, Talk about grasping at straws!!! LMFAO…. PNG!!!
You miss by 35 years. The Papua New Guinea Rugby Football League was formed 1949 (that would be 60 years ago)… Keep trying. I’ve still got the grand ready!
Springs said | December 12th 2009 @ 10:33pm | Report comment
Glen you said
‘No, better still name one country anywhere in the world where league is the no 1 code! There’s a thousand bucks in it for you!’
In PNG League is the national sport, Adrian deserves $1000
Oh, and League is a popular sport in Fiji where it was introduced in 1992. Seems I deserve $1000 too…
PastHisBest said | December 14th 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Springs, if you’re going to paraphrase please do so accurately.
M1tch said | December 12th 2009 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
actually Sth Africa do field a team, its the 3rd most popular sport in NZ and 4th most popular in England, the amnrl should show you the teams have many local born and bred yanks..
and btw are you saying the entire european rugby union championships are bigger than the 1 Rugby League comp in Australia? LOL wow I would be shocked if they didnt have more players…
Springs said | December 12th 2009 @ 10:31pm | Report comment
Mate there would not be many countries where Union is a major sport when the country didn’t play it 25 years ago, I doubt there are any.
Hobart said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:40am | Report comment
SHEEK – the Beta system was better than VHS (with the right cable) but lost out because a VHS cartridge held more, which was great for long movies. Also, there was more brand choice with VHS. So much for technology.
SPIRO – what union needs is more stars. At present Dan Carter is the only super star now that Wilko and Steyn flunked in the autumn tests. There are no giants anymore – no Jonah, Campo, no Blanco, no Rives, no Michael Jones, no Zinzan.
There’s not much reason for a leaguie to go see a union game what with the laws the way they are. The only person who seems happy with the present laws is the boss of the IRU.
You’re right about the pain associated with any projected merger of union and league, as for one very basic thing, it would mean rewriting the laws of both games and it’s easier to get blood from a turnip than to get Twickers to change, and Castereagh Street, as the dominant party in this phantom merger, would no doubt insist on expunging the contested scrum and the breakdown. They might buy the lineout as long as the ball could be thrown in crooked.
Nobody in the States rants about the laws of American football mainly because they had the good sense, years ago, to make penalties yardage penalties, something which has been suggested many times to the IRU over the years but they refuse to think about it. For them, rugby is still all about a try at goal. A kicking game for territory, a pushover try and then comes the point of the game – the conversion. Tom Brown’s schooldays are with us still.
It took years for the forward pass to be made legal in American football. The marginally, I say marginally, forward pass in union should go the way of the dodo. How refs and touchies, 15
metres behind the play, can tell when a pass between two galloping players is lateral or a tweensy bit forward is beyond me. Furthermore, a player should be allowed to recover his own fumble. Get rid of the knock-on rule – it demands perfection, and there ain’t no more perfect players.
sheek said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Thanks for correcting me, Hobart. As I said, I wasn’t sure of the why’s & how’s, but now I’m clear!
I’ve sometimes thought it would be a good decision by league to move further away from union & closer to gridiron, but still far enough away from both to be viewed as an entirely & uniquely distinct sport.
League has to resolve the scrum. My idea is to replace it with a line of scrimmage, & have a forward pass on the first tackle play only. After that, the remaining tackle plays return to league as we now it now.
This way, league has characteristics of both union & gridiron while being entirely different from both.
Rickety Knees said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
What we have here is something that is unique to Australia. The IRB and the rest of the world’s rugby community could not give a hoot about Rugby League. There would NEVER be any compromise on rule changes to bring the games together just to appease Australia.
The only scenario where I believe it will work is the demise of Rugby League and I don’t believe that is likely to happen given the passionate tribalism of the RL community.
Given the very limited player stocks of Australian Rugby – I too look at RL players such as Haynes, Inglis, Slater and dream about what might be. But it is a dream and I believe will remain so.
oikee said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
You dream about league players Rickety, and maybe you could sleep better if you did not have to dream, just go watch rugby league mate. Those players are being reproduced at junior level now. So your dreams wont subside mate, they might get worse for you now that rugby league is producing these players at the tender age of 17 to 22. Yes, we have a whole new batch about to hit the market next year.
Rickety Knees said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
I have played both games – sorry mate RL just does not do it for me. In over 100 years RL has not, I repeat, not been able to crack a new market – not even in Melbourne. IMHO your faith in a yet to be founded commission is premature. RL has its place in the Australian psyche and that is unlikely to change for quite a while but let’s not get carried away just yet – when you can put on an international event watched by more than 1 billion people where anyone of six teams could win a world cup then you can start crowing.
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Please give us an example of one major populated city that has changed its established professional football code allegiance from one code to another?
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Hey Rickety? Still looking for an answer here.
Rickety Knees said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:55pm | Report comment
BG – I am not suggesting that that has happened nor will it happen.
If you look at my first post:
“The only scenario where I believe it will work is the demise of Rugby League and I don’t believe that is likely to happen given the passionate tribalism of the RL community”.
Sam el Perro said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
“In over 100 years RL has not, I repeat, not been able to crack a new market.”
PNG?
Justin said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Space is what makes so many of these athletes look world beaters.
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
Rickety – I was referring to thisstatement you made: ” In over 100 years RL has not, I repeat, not been able to crack a new market”
No major western city has changed its football allegiance once established. RU hasn’t got any further in 100 years either. Soccer still dominates its cities, and the AFL has its. Same in North America.
Yet you suggest that rugby league has failed. Just which city on the planet do you think it ever had a chance of cracking?
Rickety Knees said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
My point is that whilst Rugby now is played nationally in over 100 nations in the world – RL still is played in the same pockets it was 100 years ago.
Springs said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
Rugby has been in those nations for 50-100 years, and is mostly in ‘rugby league-sized pockets’ in those countries.
M1tch said | December 12th 2009 @ 8:30pm | Report comment
thats very incorrect..need to check out rugby league world sites first
LT80 said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
So what would you merged rules look like sheek? I would love to see a game between a league side and a union side under these rules
- 14 players
- attacking team gets 4 uncontested tackles (play the ball) opposition must retreat 5m
- after 4 tackles play reverts to contested rucks
- rolling mauls allowed at any time
- lineouts
- uncontested scrums
sheek said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
LT80,
What we might end up with would initially depend on how equal the coming together of the two codes is. Some suggest it would be a takeover of league by union. But sometimes David will beat Goliath.
A key point is right now, neither code has got their game right, irrespective of what the diehards think.
I’m open as to how the new code might evolve.
LT80 said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
sheek, I don’t personally there would be a great chance of any code merger occuring before there was a viable set of merged rules.
I think most people are fairly resistant to radical change. Incremental change is much more likely to be successful.
So what is an incremental move? A first step would be a single game played under merged rules. Kangaroos V Wallabies, NSW V Queensland, Australia V New Zealand? Any of these games would generate massive interest.
Arky said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
RL in Australia is full of far too much vested self interested people to ever intelligently and unemotionally consider a merger with RU. And outside Australia as others have pointed out – it is the fringe game without any real power base. A merger will not happen in Australia until the hierachy face some downside. And while RU has its challenges why would it want to move in the direction of RL – sure RL has some direction in Australia but unfortunately that is it.
Furthermore if you think RU has problems – what is the scrum in league other than a joke? My twelve year old who has played in all RU forward positions can see that the RL scrum is not a contest. Why keep the notion of a scrum there? Is it merely to give the backs more room to move?
I enjoy watching RL – Apart from the Origin series I would not feel that I missed anything to not watch it – and it is nice to go into that series knowing who is playaing well – but that with a few NRL finals gsames is more than enough for me…
Some havesuggested RL has evolved from RU – has it? Or has it just been dulled down to make it a man on man contest by removing contest at line outs, scrums, rucks and mauls.The man on man elelment is what RL audiences pay to see…but it is hard to see how you compare that with RU….never the two shall meet!
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Why keep the notion of a scrum there? To give the dwindling number of RU supporters in Australia something to ridicule while feeling smug about RU’s superiority.
AC said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Yeah, we ALL know RL supporters, smug about the superority of their chosen code, don’t exist.
AC said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
I think part of the animosity that RL and RU supporters show towards each other is a genuine insecurity about the directions their game has taken. Deep down, both know their game isn’t the best it can be. The media’s die-hard League supporters like to bag Union incessently. Why? Because it’s not clear that League is a better game than Union even after all the rule changes that have happened. If it was clear cut and Union was indeed so unpopular in Australia, there would be no fear and loathing — it would be as irrelevent as Field Hockey.
No, I think it’s constantly drilling the message home to keep the faithful in check, i.e. the company with the most to lose in the whole situation (News Corp) are using their resources to keep the game afloat long enough to cover their expenses from the SL war. When that stream of media brain-washing dries up, where to for RL in Australia?
LT80 said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Pass the tin foil thanks.
oikee said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Yes Arky, agree with you mate, rugby league is only a real Australian force, but thats where the growth is coming from.?
It might only be a force in oZ , but when we showcase the game like we did with the Kiwis, people take notice, i know we had the poor old poms licking their lips , drolling over the game at the stoop, Us in OZ thought the teams were rusty. ?
Rugby league is selling its product to over seas, and will continue to do so, any thought of rugby league dying, is premature, and a unhealthy thought. Rugby league is 100% perfect, and about to leach its game onto markets worldwide, until now, we had teething problems, but no changes this year, The game is full-on, and the crowds know it, watch us go.
steve said | December 11th 2009 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
yes all 12000 expats were licking their lips…… The poms didnt even care that the game was being played
cookie said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
The more i think about this the more i think….
Who cares about league they can have their little patch of the world and quite frankly as many have pointed out.
The rest of the world couldn’t care less.
Why on god’s earth should we compromise ….. sure rugby laws need a bit of tweeking but that has nothing to do with denigrating the game by hybidising it with league….
Rickety knees…. Some of leagues stars aren’t that crash hot but they are marketed properly…. just endless baseless hype!
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
So hype is why Australians attend and watch sport? That’s a very shallow assessment. I’d be surprised if working Australians throw money at NRL and Origin tickets based on hype. It’s clear you don’t like rugby league. Time to move on.
Ken said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
Hey, as long as our own little patch continues to be this wide brown land I’m happy. The ‘rest of the world’ – great place to take a holiday but who’d want to live there….
Conor said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:49pm | Report comment
you mean the wide brown land of nsw, qld and….
Tock said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Sheek
Good article but what appears a real possibility to me is that they will not merge in the short term, league will remain strong in NSW Qld and that rugby will be reduced to a boutique game in Aus with a hard core still following and playing. Rugby will continue to grow world wide and maintain its popularity in its traditional bases and perhaps in time league will be consumed by soccer and AFL and reduced to same level as rugby at which point merger is possible. As it stands now though I would rather cut my throat than merge with league with all the compromise that would entail not to mention the absorption of the triumphalist moron culture that goes with it.
We are at a critical moment in Rugby’s development in Australia and if we get it wrong now the scenario I have outlined above will come to pass.
I have been secretary, now president of a regional junior comp for the last two years and a junior coach in that comp for six years before that and the signs are very worrying from a number of perspectives, those being:
• Being seen as nothing more than a scheduling annoyance to the senior competition
• lack of capacity to grow junior number in our area
• lack of technical coaching support from the ARU
• collapse of junior rugby comps outside our area
• lack of ARU profile in primary schools an any worthwhile scale.
vinay verma said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Sheek,your piece throws up the age old dilemna of “where to from here” Sport,music,literature,dance and smoking pot relieve the monotony and drudgery of work and commerce.
Australia is unique in the fact that we have so many team sports that consistently make the cut for the Olympics. There is a religious and ethnic connection(as Spiro has mentioned) in a lot of our sport. For instance in Cricket we had the protestant,so called “blue bloods” aginst the Catholic “working class”( Bradman was a Mason but more closely allied to Protestantism). One of the reasons why Fingleton and O’Rielly did not see eye to eye with The Don.
The success of any Sport will increasingly be determined by its attractiveness to the spectators and broadcasters. I see countless posts on the Roar where the different codes are trying to establish their preeminence. This is not a competition to see who has the most posts or who shouts the loudest and longest. Both fans and administrators need to realise there is no God given right to eminence. This will ultimately me determined by the “attractiveness” and “entertainmnet” value of the product. Administrators need to focus on their own sport and see how they can improve the product and not worry about the other codes. In fact there was recently a meeting of Sporting Captains in Canberra that was initiated by John Eales.
Australia needs to look at its sporting teams with an inclusiveness rather than an exclusiveness.
The biggest Australian Sporting Achievement in the last month belongs to Ric Charlesworth and the Kookas. Except for the Hockey fraternity there has been only a cursory interest. What are our Sports Editors thinking?
League,Union and AFL have all been played at the SCG. The MCG has hosted Football,AFL,Union and Cricket.
I am optimistic that the Aussie Sport fan,like many all over the world,only want to see the best..it is irrelevant what sport it is.
Context is the key,irrespective of the sport.
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
how can you honestly say the crowds for the 4 nations were successful? as a RL/RU fan i was very disappointed about the crowd at wigan. paris was even worse.
when you talk about big crowds you have to purely rely on SOS, semis or the final, ESL final and challenge cup. besides that you have no other big crowds. u get no big crowds for regular games (though brisbane does attract healthy crowds). compare this to french RU. stade francais has 5 games a year at 70K+. toulon took a game to marseille and got 55K. bayonne and biarritz have moved games to the spanish basque country in order to accomodate the demand. stade is taking a game to belgium! and its just not france. the UK have been moving to big crowd pulling blockbusters. saracens got 45K to open the year at wembley. they got the same again when they played SA (on a tuesday!). shall i go on?
our game isnt perfect, but no one has claimed it is. we have to keep imporving it. leaguiues, howver, love to claim they have the best product and rugby is rubbish. however, crowds dont lie.
oikee- you have been goin on about the US for a long time, yet i see no prove of your claims. USA rugby, however, goes from strength to strength, having qaulified for 2011 WC.
when england played argentina during June this year, the argentina home game was moved to Old Trafford. It was a cold day in yorkshire, and the top england players were on lions duty. regardless, 55K turned up to the game. this is league heartland, yet a second string england RU team can draw twice as much to an international then there RL equilvants. says a lot i think.
LT80 said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
King I believe the NRL has a larger average crowd than both Guiness Premiership and Top 14. Is is larger than H-Cup as well? I think the only comp with a larger average would be the Super 14.
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
top 14 is set attendance records this year. average crowd will beat nrl.
also note that some towns such as Albi only have 40K population. so when they get a crwod of 10K its actually a quarter of the city show up!
LT80 said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
Not according to this mate:
2009/10 average to date = 12,467
http://lnr.fr/Client/asp/championnat/statsdyn/StatsStadetop14.asp?CleCompet=112695
2008/09 season average = 12,107
http://lnr.fr/Client/asp/championnat/statsdyn/StatsStadetop14.asp?CleCompet=103061
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
did u see the 70K for the stade game. and thats just a regular season game
LT80 said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
I did. Here is a genuine question – how is it that Paris don’t sell out their 12k stadium when they play there, but when they play at the 80,000 capacity place, they almost fill it up?
BN said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
And with the average NRL crowd over 16 000 for the last season, they still got a bit of catching up to do. But as you say KIng, crowds don’t lie.
danwighton said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
Crowds are important, but they are not everything. Other things to consider are relative population of the country and region, as well as traveling distances and cost of attendance, availability on television, quality of stadia etc. Also, some sports are more suited to television than others, and this facilitates their popularity and growth irrespective of crowd numbers.
Their is nothing wrong with the RL product – the quality of the RL product is probably the only reason for its durability through all these years where it has been significantly disadvantaged in many ways by RU authorities.
In all areas where RL is popular, RU is popular also (unlike RU, where there are many areas that RL doesnt exist in any significant manner, such as south africa and argentina). Therefore, RL always needs to compete with RU for fan and corporate support – and the corporate financial support will always first flow to RU due to Union’s links with private schools and powerful corporates (while the idea that RU it is an upper middle class game as opposed to a working class game may be a vintage stereotype, advertisers buy into this, as do many other folk).
Considering the constant flow of articles (both on the Roar and otherwise) lamenting the quality of the Union we see these days, and the lack of similar stories about League, it would be hard to maintain an argument that RL’s failure to grow exponentially is due to a poor quality product.
Working Class Rugger said | December 11th 2009 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
LT80
Have you seen their Stadium. It’s a whole. They are actually planning to move to a 30,000 seater in the coming seasons.
Springs said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
I already answered this post in another thread you just copied it from there.
danwighton said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
You’re not a RL fan, King!
hutch said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
nice way to hide the facts. stade francais do get over 70 thousand a few times a year because of fantastic promotion and marketing, every other game struggles to sell out their 12000 seat stadium. the entire french top 14 averages just over 12000 per game which is dramatically propped up by the 5 or 6 big stadium crowds (which are fantastic for the sport, dont get me wrong) and the english premiership averages under 12000. the nrl averages around 17000 per game, and the brisbane broncos pull in over 34000 every home game, making them the biggest ‘rugby’ club in the world. you’re right, crowds dont lie!
also, super league is about the same size as the guiness premiership in england in terms of crowds, with a few clubs dragging the average down this year. however, it draws pretty much double the average tv viewers per game on sky sports.
John Ryan said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
The reason League supporters bag Union is 100 years of of Union trying in every way to kill league,in the UK, in South Africa, in France, in Australia,then you wonder why given the fact that in Australia League is more popular than Union that we give you a good kicking ever chance we have..
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
vichy etc? those excuses are getting old. the reason the game didnt spread is because it was and is a weak product
Springs said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Game started in France 1934. Vichy government banned it in 1940. League came back after war but was not allowed to call itself Rugby, had to call itself ‘Game of Thirteen’. France was very competitive over next twenty years or so, beating Australia in test series, plus runner-up in two world cups. Eventually the game faded away because of the continuous rule changes and professionalism in Australia.
Now League has record numbers in France and is the fastest growing sport in the country.
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
ha yea the 6K in paris shows how popular the game is in france…..
if u have one player then get another u have double your numbers, however, that doesnt means its ‘fast growing’
france in RL terms has been a massive disappointment
Springs said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:43am | Report comment
No, the crowds at Toulouse and Perpignan show how popular the game is in France, if you keep going back to one crowd I can say that the 80K at the Challenge Cup finals show that league is as popular as Union in England, which it isn’t.
And 14,000 more players this year than ‘02 means it is fast growing.
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
and what are those crowds?
12k is pretty poor
Springs said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
Yes, 12K is pretty poor, so the Top 14 obviously have poor crowds then right?
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
ha. 12K for an international is poor.
70K for a club game is great
rugbyfuture said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
union was defending itself because league kept trying to destroy it by taking all the players
Springs said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
League in France was not professional to begin with, entire clubs switched to League and were very close to the amount of clubs in Union. Union officials then sided with the Vichy government and outlawed League as a corrupter of French youth.
League was threatening to take over Union, so Union destroyed it.
rugbyfuture said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
but that was only in france and does not lend itself to rugby union spending 100 years worldwide trying to kill league
John Ryan said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:12pm | Report comment
Well when the whites ran South Africa under apartheid Rugby League was denied grounds, all kinds of obstacles were placed in the way of the code because of the close ties between the old regime in SA and the Rugby Union.
The UK Rugby Union made it very difficult for League to be played in Universities and the military,the old boys network and class had a lot to do with that,and the cloth cap syndrome, France was colabration centeral with Union, Vichy and the Germans,plus wholesale theft by Union of gear grounds and confiscation of money.
In Australia,league is more popular,thought Granny and her Rugby writers don’t like it much,biggest problem League has here are the NEWS LTD war,the tendency for the leagues clubs to be run by people with the for site of gnats,IE smoking bans,pokie taxes,incompetence and cronyism,and what will be next bus off the rank alcohol advertising bans and reistrictions on the numbers of pokies.
Also the Blazer brigade in the ARL and QRL dont help sooner the commission is up and running the better
rugbyfuture said | December 11th 2009 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
i give in to your argument, but it is variable country to country, also i dont think smoking bans pokie taxes and alcohol advertising bans and restrictions have anything to do with how the leagues clubs are run, rather that they affect all clubs, and these laws are being made for good reason
Gary said | December 12th 2009 @ 12:00am | Report comment
Leuage is more popular on the Eastern seaboard. Here in the West League is a non event. AFL is dominant but Rugby is growing rapidly as is soccer.
AC said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Most league supporters, and indeed union supporters, have no clue about the dirty politics of the game going back 60 or 70 years. Most don’t care either. As for Union in Australia trying to kill League? Union in Australia seems to have done everything in its power to make sure League survived! Don’t underestimate Rugby Union’s role in making Rugby League strong in Australia (and viable in the world), whether it was deliberate or not.
People are right to bag rugby union ADMINISTRATORS for their parts in failing to compensate players, asset seizures etc (hardly attrocities as one poster put it — it’s not like Union administrators committed genocide on the admin and player bodies of League).
What I don’t understand is why there is the constant bagging of the GAME of Union by League commentators? Why would they give a rats? I’ll repeat it again — I believe there is a deep insecurity that the rule changes introduced by the Northern Union to make a better rugby game do not clearly work.
Westy said | December 11th 2009 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Just for amoment Nzers piss off. Rugby union in australia needs rugby league for its club competition. end of story.
Elite club rugby in Australia is on the whole pretty poor. Talk of tribalism what the hell is West harbour .I always sit at Concord and say I am on the harbour.
We have a handful of clubs with some genuine tribalism but it is relative to rugby league clubs a pale comparison. It will get worse with the melbourne franchise. Melbourne will get ten from overseas and do you seriously think all 20 or so extra players will be returning overseas Aussies. They will hit the best club rugby teams.
Australian rugby has always lacked depth but we have done well with our limited supply line. The danger at the moment is that schoolboy stars are being moddycoddled into thinking thay are superstars before they have played any serious or consistent adult club rugby at a reasonable level.
The problem with the australian system is that our schoolboy stars are less hungry than our NZ counterparts and face less competition for places.
Beale was king on the schoolboy field but never quite the same on the adult paddock yet on huge money. O’Connor whilst at school was peddled around to Afl /rugby league and rugby union could not afford to let him go. we pay $600000 a season to a young bench player with some potential.
Instead of heading for hard consistent elite club rugby we have a system where it is best avoided if you can.
From a purely Australian perspective Australian rugby would love to have rugby league clubs and tribalism.
I have witnessed tremendous wallaby tests before huge crowds with a great sense of national pride but as in AFL there is something distinctly local and deeply communal when you see blue and gold Parramatta flags flying up against Blue and white Canterbury- Bankstown flags before a 75000 NRL semi final.
I have never made any secret that i celebrate the former in Australian rugby union but deeply regret we lost the latter.
stillmissit said | December 11th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Great post Westy. We have a young guy who was with Penrith Leagues with a bunch of other youngsters. The money was good but it was around $50k base plus bonuses. 600k for O’Connor must make some of our League counterparts laugh in their beer. Potential is not worth much it is performance thats worth money. We also need to be able to reward good performance higher and poor performance needs to be penalised.
We are so far behind RL in terms of payments, expectations and penalties in the professional era it is a joke. If the codes are to join sometime in the future, there must be some rationality in our payments system. Lote must have wet himself laughing when he heard what Connolly and Flowers wanted to pay him to sign in a hurry before O’Neil turned up.
katzilla said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
‘Just for amoment Nzers piss off’
Lol I don’t see how thats relevant? But ill go away for a little while then come back ok?
AndyS said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
“From a purely Australian perspective Australian rugby would love to have rugby league clubs and tribalism”
Of course, but on point RU wouldn’t get either of those things simply by somehow buying out the clubs. It would have to be generated separately, which would mean a head-to-head competition and the winner determined over the long term by supporters, sponsors and the media.
oikee said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Westy, i cant feel you pain mate, you have choice, you choose rugby union. Let that be your penence. On your point.
Australian rugby has always lacked depth but we have done well with our limited supply line. The danger at the moment is that schoolboy stars are being moddycoddled into thinking thay are superstars before they have played any serious or consistent adult club rugby at a reasonable level.
The difference being rugby league producers real super stars, now dont be a hamster, tell the truth, Greg Inglis compared to your best Union player. ??? Mate, you need rocks in your head to even compare, but your point is good.
Rugby league is outstanding at Junior level , light years, ( i know i sound boring when i say this) but light years ahead of union come juniors. Now think about what rugby league is producing right now, at junior level up to under 20’s. These kids are on Dollars mate, big money, why, because they are the best in oz. By far, better coaching, better trainers, and much better structures,
Now even if rugby union started to get this right Toomoorow, and had these trainers and coaches, it wont make the world of differnce, as you have seen with the International rugby. The defence improves, the game becomes more bogged down, your looking for rule changes, mate, Rubgy league has already gone through this evolution baby.
We are at the peak of our powers.,
Now, Degree in law, Professor of Mathematics, or Learned brian Scientist can’t equate a formula to fix Union, its unfixable, 7’s will only benifit rugby league, it cant help 15’s. Now, i am going to get myself a sanger. Cheers.
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
the crowds u used to back up your claims were crowds i had already mentioned. they all seem to involve the broncos. i conceded that they do get good crowds (not massive though, which i consider 60K plus to be massive). el magic’s farewell game was well attended and rightfully so. as for double headers and opening games- your going back a long way there.
the french 14 is currently played in some small stadiums. thats why they move it to bigger stadiums and are building new stadiums. the game has grown that much they need bigger stadiums. crowds are gorwing, as for the ESL crowds are shrinking. u cant hide from that one.
if you cant sell out a WC final then your in trouble. u failed to explain why a second string english RU side, played in RL heartland got over double the crowd an engish RL team got! try to explain that one. and dont tell me its because the english RL has not been performing. the english RU team has also been underperforming but didnt stop them getting 55K in Manchester.
M1tch said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
Yeh sydney crowds for all sports are pretty ordinary, perhaps the fishbowl of ANZ for regular season games, the public transport and raods in sydney stops people from attending..but doesnt stop them from watching on TV.
NRL crowds have been going up despite bad suburban grounds and the fact people hate ANZ, This year was first year in 10 years that ESL crowd averages went down.
Have a look at ESL and where teams play..a bit like top 14, most play in small stadiums, it aint big in Manchester..id expect Rugby Union anywhere in UK to outdraw RL
Springs said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
That’s almost the exact same thing I said when King posted this exact same response last time, in the article where Spiro compared the Barbarians crowd to the Aus-Eng game in London.
MyGeneration said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
…the Aus-Eng game in London that never occurred.
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
if you make a good point why not make it again
Springs said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:51pm | Report comment
Because it is not a good point, it is a very bad point. I already answered these points with better points of my own and you did not answer, instead you bring your first point back up and refuse to acknowledge they have already been answered
oikee said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
60 thousand crowds are international crowds, any team getting that weekly is a super mega team. So rugby league crowds of 20 thousand are big. The broncos by having 35 thousand average are huge mate. The tigers fill out their home crowds, the eels supporters came out in force, Scary wasn’t it, and filled 2x 70 thousand crowds. Mate thats one suburb. Now to compare a whole country, and at international level, against the super tanker,
Be my guest, keep comparing, it only makes the NRL golliath seem all the more a beast than what it already is. Cheers.
King of the Gorganites said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:37pm | Report comment
the parra games were semi’s. im talking about regular season games. look at some of the crowds in the top 14. stade gets 5 70)K plus crowds in there regular season
Springs said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
They are some of the crowds, more like 5. The Top 14 finals get less than NRL finals. The other regular season games get low crowds.
JF said | December 11th 2009 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
The only professional RL team in London drew a home crowd average of under 4000 last season. In over 100 years of RL in england, this is public response to the game in the nation’s largest city. RL is not about conquring the world, it is about heartlands, areas of passionate support – this is an element of RL’s identity, the sport has regionality, this should be celebrated and protected.
John Ryan said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:11pm | Report comment
Tell me the last time an Australian Club rugby game got better than Friends and relatives,you keep dragging up Europe, UK, France, unfortunately we are talking about Australia,super 14 did not get that good a crowds either,so you pin your hope on super 15,wake me up when you reach super 30 it will still be the same over refereed mess it always was
Jameswm said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
It’s all about the money.
Rugby has a much bigger market – compare France, the UK, Australia, SA and NZ plus emerging countries like Spain, Argentina, Italy, Japan and USA – the rugby economy dwarfs League’s on a global basis.
The death of League as a major force will only happen if the rugby economy starts dwarfing League in Australia. If blokes can only earn $150K playing League but $600-700K playing rugby, guess which one they’ll choose? The local League comp would then become (more of a) breeding ground for rugby.
Could this happen in my lifetime? Maybe. The rugby types aren’t aggressive enough with their marketing, though. They still think just because they have the superior product, people will follow. They have to put in the effort.
And it starts with footy cards…so simple, yet so effective…
M1tch said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
those players have left for the money and look where most end up?
Both here and in England, not many have been superstars and then stayed.
Union doesnt have the tribal passion..people arent as passionate about the waratahs as they are about the Eels or broncos, thats the main difference, which is why league is bigger domestically and union is bigger nationally.
Brett McKay said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
James, that’s pretty much the same thinking that prompted my hypothetical question below…
John Ryan said | December 11th 2009 @ 11:14pm | Report comment
Superior product,O please,is that before or after they administer the No Doze to the crowd,Christ even your own journalists think its going backwards,over reffed,to many rules ect ect
Brett McKay said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
Just for the sake of discussion, and given that this whole “coming together” scenario is only likely to play out in Australia, let me pose a Geoffrey Robertson hypothetical for the afternoon.
IF the ARU suddenly had a bottomless pit of money, and bought all 34 NSW and QLD SOO players this year (so the best players in the game) as well as coaxing say, Channel 9, Telstra and Harvey Norman away from the NRL as broadcasters and major sponsors:
i. would the NRL survive losing its best players and major backers (let’s assume the independant commisison in operational)?
ii. if so, how long would the revival take?
iii. and if not, would the “death” be instant or would it fade over time?
I’m really not suggesting this will or should happen; I’d just be interested in people’s thoughts here..
Rickety Knees said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Brett, maybe the ARU should lobby the IRB for a special grant to “bring League back home” …..
Brett McKay said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
don’t stir the pot Rickety, I was trying to make this a proper discussion point!!
Rickety Knees said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Me stir? Never ….
M1tch said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
IF that happened, yeh id say RL would be in trouble, but i suppose channel 7 would step in for the rights and the number of young juniors would simply be fast tracked
sheek said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
Brett,
You are basically suggesting a reverse of 1909.
League often cites Dally Messenger as the key signature that kicked off Australian rugby league. But this is simply human nature’s way of simplifying things for posterity. League was nearly dead in the water in 1908 & going into 1909.
What saved league & nearly killed off union was the signing of 14 key Wallabies to play in exhibition matches against the Kangaroos in late 1909.
Even with Messenger’s signature, league was about to sink in 1909. It was the mass signing of so many talented Wallabies that swung the final balance.
Union historians say rugby players defected to league back in 1908-09 because of money, as if this is some kind of biblical revelation.
It’s almost always about the money!!!
Brett McKay said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Sheek, I wasn’t necessarily thinking about 1909 when I posed the questions, but yeah, I guess that would be true. A cross-code raid along similar lines to the Super League battle would be a simliar analogy too, where depending on which book you’re reading, it’s often suggested that the Newcastle Knights staying loyal to the ARL was what basically swung the balance (or at least levelled the playing field).
MyGeneration said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Brett, It’s kind of like you’re asking at what point the Black Knight will stop saying “It’s just a flesh wound!” But, accepting the implausibility of your plot (kind of like league and union merging any time soon), I’ll give it some kind of a shot:
i. You’re asking could the NRL survive losing it’s 34 best players, broadcaster, and major sponsors in one hit? The NRL might not survive, but grass roots Rugby League would.
ii. If there was a (NRL) revival, it would have to be based on the ARU seriously stuffing up the integration of the 34 players, which is on the cards given their recent track record. How long before the stars start “coming home” (but, of course, there’s no broadcaster, so who would report it?)? Of course, the NRL has replaced it’s stars at a pretty healthy rate in recent years, so what’s another 34 going to hurt. But you’ve rather stacked the deck with the broadcaster and sponsor criteria.
iii. Are you asking would Rugby League die, or just the NRL?
Finally, I’d say the big winners of your hypothetical would be the AFL and soccer.
Brett McKay said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
MyGen, yeah, I guess I’m more aiming at the top level with those questions. I would imagine that League would survive in some manner, perhaps similarly to how ice hockey and gridiron and handball are played in Australia.
Thanks for giving it some thought. And quite true too, apart from rugby union (obviously), AFL and soccer would benefit very well…
LT80 said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Brett I think your hypothetical is so unlikely that it is not worth speculating.
If all the best players instantaneously left the game, and it was suddenly not popular enough to be shown on TV, well then I think you’ve answered your own question – the game is in trouble.
However, it’s worth considering what would happen if indeed the ARU (with it’s bottomless pit of money) did start gradually and relentlessly buying up players as they came off contract. I don’t think this would lead to instant death or even a gradual fade, given that player depth and development structures are so good in RL. It would force the NRL to find ways a way to increase the salary cap, though.
Brett McKay said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
LT, I don’t think it’s any more or less unlikely than the two codes coming together, do you?
Perhaps another way of wording it might have been instead if five or six key clubs (geographically) suddenly switched to rugby union, to play in a new “NRU” comp. How quickly might the balaance of power switch then??
LT80 said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Well I’m actually with sheek, I think eventually there’s a reasonable chance we’ll see just one form of rugby…..eventually.
But your suggestion was that all the best players decide to break their existing playing contracts, and a broadcaster is “coaxed” (how? why?) into breaking a broadcast contract. Now I’m aware that contracts can be and are broken every day, but that brings consequences andI don’t think your scenario is a likely one.
But I understand what you’re getting at. I personally don’t subscribe to the view that there is some great underlying difference between the games to play or watch, they are very similar. This idea that they are fundamentally different due to the contest for possession (or lack of it) is just people trying to over-intellectualize things.
At their best, IMO both codes are about ball-in-hand running rugby (some would disagree).
IronAwe said | December 11th 2009 @ 7:18pm | Report comment
Ummm, I think Australia is the least likely country this scenario will play out in. In the UK you already have rich Union clubs buying out their league counterparts and using them as talent pools, I don’t ever see that happening here.
Timmypig said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
In the wake of an NRL season that had some stupendously good footy, why would Rugby League want to change any aspect of its existance to merge with Rugby? All this talk about crowd sizes in France etc is irrelevant. So too the notion that the whatever % increase in Rugby League players in Moldova is a sign of the game’s growth. Irrelevant.
And for Rugby – why would any union aligned with the IRB that isn’t in Australasia, PNG or Nthn England entertain thoughts of changes to the game to merge with a game of which they’re unlikely to have heard or seen?
So let’s say that the TV rights holders – a fictitious ‘The Very Very Large and Nasty Media Corporation’ – arranges some kind of merged product for television in Australasia, PNG & Nthn England “AND BROADCASTS IT TO 36 BILLION PEOPLE WORLDWIDE!!!!!!” …. the rest of the world would shrug they shoulders and continue playing Rugby, and within days new independent Rugby Leagues would be set up to play a game that looks a striking resemblence to what is now called Rugby League, and its adherents would ignore the merged product too.
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
Sheek asked at the top: “Or the trigger could be something ridiculously simple we haven’t thought of as yet.”
I agree.
I’m thinking that Bernard Lapasset, the International Rugby Board’s chairman, will wake up tomorrow morning and issue an apology to rugby league, saying on behalf of RU that he is sorry for all the ills that caused the 1895 split and the atrocities committed upon league by union ever since, and he will ensure the IRB provide a suitable financial compensation to the existing rugby league bodies to pay off all the existing officials, buy all the top NRL & SL players, convince the top RL branded clubs to join RU, and merge every RL body into its local RU counterpart.
Simple.
Midfielder said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Sheek
I suggest rugby celebrate the differences and use a combined force.. To explain Football has the 11 aside game, indoor, beach, Fustal, all different from the main game, but combined and the ease of playing some of the other forms adds to the overall strength.
In Rugby you have the 15 aside game called Rugby Union, the 13 aside game called Rugby League, you have a 7 aside games called Rugby 7’s, you have touch…Thats four separate forms of rugby non more special than any other all following a variation of rugby principals.
I spend a lot of time in Fiji [business mainly] I am ever amazed how the Fijians view rugby and my experience is all four are viewed as separate but very enjoyable games… There is no real turf war as there seems to be in Australia… Maybe I am being to hard as many RU folk in Australia have a RL team and most RL folk watch the Wallabies..
If I am right and there is already an existing watching pattern then don’t work on the differences … work on the same and work out a system to help each other.. A combined rugby code in Australia would dwarf any other code..
So celebrate the differences enjoy the rugby world instead of fighting over the same turf.
Rickety Knees said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Excellent contribution Midfielder!
Barking Glider said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
That won’t work. The RU world will have to stop using “rugby” to describe Rugby XVs.
LT80 said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
Midfielder, that is a good point. However, the essential point of difference was always the amateur/professional divide, which is now no longer there.
So in a sense, the two codes cannot help but fight over the same turf.
To go back to your soccer example, I would guess that outdoor 11-aside accounts for 90% or more of the spectator interest and revenue in the game . The other variations are fighting for the remainder. Which rugby code takes this pre-eminent position?
Midfielder said | December 11th 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
LT80
Yes & no
In revenue terms maybe .. however that is not to say there is no revenue in the other forms in fact there is quite a bit.. but in player numbers they are huge…. more over many of football top stars started playing is some of the other types of the game..
sheek said | December 11th 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
Midfielder,
In an ideal world we could enjoy the difference each rugby code provides. However, we live in a world whereby both codes are striving to secure the same body types for all backline positions & backrow positions in both codes.
Only the body types of the union tight five are different.
Then there is sponsors, broadcasters, grounds, & not least of all, fans. While many sponsors, broadcasters, fans, etc can currently divide their support across several sports, how much longer can we expect this situation to remain?
Professional codes are changing the sporting landscape. There is big money to be made & inefficent sports, or sports deemed to be inefficient, will be sidelined. Unfortunately, economic rationalisation is part of the business beast.
Midfielder said | December 11th 2009 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
Sheek
I hear what you say … however … PLEASE RL & RU folk don’t pick on me for this… BUT if you want to promote ryuby in countries that don’t play or play little … IMO you start with touch,… fast no one gets hurt … then show them league fast but way less complex the RU and much easier to learn and more importantly understand from a new person… then move to RU … and play 7’s for fun..
In Fiji they like and appreciate all forms of the game so do I … for heaven sake I still play the odd game of touch [prehaps with less speed these days but my experience helps] .. I have a mate who drags to RL & RU matches and I drag him to Football matches … my point I enjoy RL & RU but but heck often ask those around me .. “” What was that for on a ref’s call”"” … at RU matches and many say I have no idea mate should have gone the other way… meaning RL to those not used to rugby is easier to understand…
As I say there is more in it for both codes if they can find a common ground but celebrate there differences
Rin said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
Leagues strongest point in Australia is it produces really good players, with legitimate skills, who can be marketed well if done properly (its just a pity they cant prove this on a world stage because of RL’s lack of international presence), so therefore if they were to go and it doesnt have to be 30 of them just say 15-20 then it would spell big trouble for the NRL. something i suspect would not be able to recover from.
Matt said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
I think it is quite a logical pathway personally. You have two codes that aren’t THAT disimilar in the same markets around the world (predominantly UK, France and the South West Pacific/Australasia) both using the name unique name, Rugby.
They both use a uniquely oval shaped ball that can be handled by any player and that is both passed and kicked, but not passed forward. Both sports also involve full contact and are played on the same sized field with the same goal posts and similarly skilled players.
The two codes of Rugby are not that different, so the subtle differences in the rules are therefore accentuated and disected by each other die hard fans as excuses over why one is better than the other. But in truth, would a person who has never seen either Rugby code before notice any difference? I’d say they wouldn’t have a clue. They’d see the world rugby, look at what is generally happening on the field and natural believe it already WAS just one sport.
Here’s how I personally see it happening…
Union drops two players from the scrum. This is done to create more space for attacking play and to make scrums more transparent and stable. It also reduces the financial burden of larger playing rosters and means less players are involved in rucks.
The RFU decides that more income and a more enjoyable amateur code would exist if Rugby Union is played in the Summer time. Thus a global Rugby Union calendar is forged for the first time and professional Rugby Union is played in the warmer climate of Spring/Summer/Autumn, providing an explosion of ball in hand type rugby to better suit the dry conditions.
This calendar change puts Rugby Union into the direct market place with the Super League and takes it out of direct competition with Football in the UK. The Celtic League sides then follow suit, as does France making Rugby Union the undesputed Summer code of choice in these nations (bar Cricket in England).
With both Rugby codes now competing in the same summer market preivous expansion Super League franchises are put under financial pressure to compete (with the traditionally larger Rugby clubs such as Harlequins in London, the Celtic Crusaders in Wales and the Catalans Dragons and Toulouse in Frace). The Super League then starts to retract when faced with Rugby Unions far larger and more diverse European club competitions (including the Heineken Cup).
The Northern England rugby league clubs (effectively the old Northern Union) decide that they need to evolve to prevent the collapse of the Super League and the loss of their clubs and the long heritage attached. These teams then begin a slow adaptation of their rules, starting with the introduction of lineouts and contested scrums towards a 13 per side Rugby Union type game. The English Premiership expands to 16 professional teams, with introduction of Bradford, St Helens, Hull FC, Wigan and with Leeds Rhinos replacing Leeds Carnegie. The remaining Super League clubs will be integrated into the RFU league pyramid creating creating a combined Rugby code in England that is the dominant summer code of choice and which has hard core supporters the length and width of the UK. Not to mention the wealth of possessions and lucrative television contracts owned by the Rugby England.
With the global popularity of Rugby Union thanks to the inclusion of 7’s rugby in the Olympics Australia remains a nation divided by it’s football codes. With the AFL, ARL, A-League and Super18 going head to head. As the summer football code Soccer maintains steady growth off the back of the Socceroos and the hosting of the FIFA World Cup on Australian soil. The AFL’s constant expansion into new markets and Rugby League heartlands, combined with the conservatism of the club elected independent ARL board see a constant encroachment of Aussie Rules into League territory, particularly within NSW.
The advent of 13 per side Rugby Union, and the dissolution of Super League leaves the code of Rugby League without an intenational competition aspect or a viable alternative employment location for it’s players. Stars looking to earn better income from Rugby are then forced to play professional Rugby Union in Europe, Japan, or within the Super18. The demand for talent from overseas and the large disparity in potential earnings slowly erodes the depth of ARL talent until a similar ‘merger’ of clubs takes place in Australia. With the clubs retaining their identities and assets but instead playing a different version of 13 a side rugby, iterated over a series of years to maintain continuity with the fans.
oikee said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Matt, sounds good, but take this with you before you waste your time on another small novel. If rugby union converts to 13, it wont be union that wins, it will be rugby league, thats why they split and moved forward. So Union taking over rugby league, not on your nelly, rugby league will produce the headlines for the world to see, rugby union wasted its time for 120 years to get where rugby league is today, welcome, the super tanker welcomes all to the 13 man game, Treiese.
Sam el Perro said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
“If rugby union converts to 13, it wont be union that wins, it will be rugby league, thats why they split and moved forward.”
FYI, rugby league did not change to 13 players until 1906. From 1895 to 1905 it was played with 15 players.
rugbyfuture said | December 11th 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
too late for this article everyone, the irrational leagueys like oikee have come in and that means it won’t be long before we see paley come in too
Zac Zavos said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Guys – please simply report comments if you feel something is inappropriate and we’ll moderate them.
We don’t know about issues unless you use the Report Comment feature on the site.
Thanks, Zac
Lazza said | December 11th 2009 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
As an outsider I’ve always thought it to be logical to merge the two codes. In a tough, competitive market having your sport split into two different versions doesn’t really do you any favours. As a proud, sports loving Australian I find having so many talented players in the least international of the two versions a bit sad as well.
I think you Rugby fans are a bit hard on yourselves sometimes. With such a tiny pool of players we’ve still managed to win 2 World Cups. Having said all that I can’t see where the urgency to merge is going to come from. RL is only really popular here in Aus and Nth England so why would the other Rugby nations even consider it?
Sam said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
They won’t consider it. The experimental laws trialled by the IRB in the Super 14 were attacked by many in the northern hemisphere before they were even played because they claimed it was an attempt to make the game more like rugby league (this wasn’t true, but try telling them that in the UK). The opposition to rule changes that even ‘hint’ at making rugby union more like league is incredible in the northern hemisphere, and that is where most rugby union players, and where most of the money in the sport, comes from. I can’t see the major rugby nations coming together and agreeing to any rule changes designed to entice players and supporters from what is a relatively small sporting market (Australia). For that reason I don’t think it will happen.
Australia is quite unique because rugby league is more popular here than rugby union. It’s the other way around in nearly every other country where either code is played in significant numbers. This distorts the Australian view of the rugby union / rugby league relationship, which is why we end up seeing articles like this. In most major rugby union playing countries rugby league is considered insignificant – and certainly not a threat to their player and supporter base.
Campbell Watts said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
I see nature taking it course and Union dying a slow death in Australia.
And really – why not?
We dont look like we’ll ever win the Bledisloe Cup – hardly worth watching anymore!
Watching the hideous style the Wallabies are playing is like having your teeth pulled!
When the Scots beat us it’s like having your fingernails pulled too!
I’m off to buy an All Blacks jersey and I’ll start supporting them – I might actually start ENJOYING watching union again then! At least it will be nice to see my side winning!
Ryan said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
CW. I hope your RL team is a winner or it will get very expensive for you to buy up a couple of different NRL jerseys if your team starts to lose a few matches. You have spoken about the Scots game which was a shocker but what about the Wales game? Save your cash and hold onto your Wallabies jersey, the boys have seen the light.
Gibbo said | December 16th 2009 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
he must back the storm.
Sam el Perro said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
Just above the comment was made that “the irrational leagueys like oikee have come in…”
Then you have said that “(f)rom what I gather, it would be a sad day for the police should RL collapse, because they would then have to actually do some work to look for wife-beaters etc.” It seems that both sides are capable of flaming.
Can we stick to the point?
MyGeneration said | December 11th 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
Looks like that comment has been removed, Sam, so this and the next two responses don’t make sense. Suggestion to moderators: if a flame is removed, maybe responses to it should be removed as well.