- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Mark Latham, the bovver boy of Australian politics, has turned his anger on the rugby union code. As usual, his ranting contains the usual Latham lethal cocktail (to his own credibility as a commentator) of misogynistic nastiness, factual inaccuracy, and unrelenting venom.
The best thing about the Latham article in The Spectator is its title (no doubt the work of a smart sub): ‘League is the game they play in Heaven.’
Latham’s argument (as far as it can be put in a coherent way) is that rugby league is the “most brutally exciting game devised by humankind.” It started in Australia in 1908 when a group of “tough-minded, hard-bodied working class men in Sydney resented the elitist” rugby union code which was ‘too-mean’ to compensate them for time lost from injuries suffered playing that game.
Two factors, he says, are responsible for the success of rugby league entrenching itself as the winter code of preference in NSW and Queensland.
“The first is rules changes.” These changes made the game a “fan friendly” and “exciting” contest.
This is in contrast with rugby union, which plays a game that is somewhat like rugby league in the 1950s with “pointless series of rucks from the forwards who barge the ball forward in a time warp of unlimited tackles, zero-metre defensive lines and spectator boredom.”
“The second factor in league’s success is the way in which it helps men deal with the repression of masculinity,” which has been squeezed out of society by a number of powerful influences, such as “the crisis in male identity … the rise of Left-feminism … and the moralising of the mass media.”
We can deconstruct the Latham argument and expose it as a fraud by first looking at his second factor.
Latham has a perverse view of masculinity that emphasises male thuggery, socially unacceptable behaviour and close-fisted intimidation as having some sort of male value and validation.
Latham implies that the disgraceful behaviour by a handful of rugby league players, involving a shabby treatment of women and an over-indulgence of alcohol, is somehow a justifiable expression of masculinity. Tell that to the women involved, supporters and to the authorities running the game.
Like all the major sports, the rugby league authorities are establishing the benchmark that modern masculinity does not require its players to beat-up women or to get so absolutely stinking drunk that they perform actions in public places that are so offensive they make normal people feel sick just thinking about them.
This is not Left-feminist nonsense, as Latham would have us believe. It is modern civility.
There is nothing un-masculine about the master-coach Wayne Bennett. He does not use vile language. He does not condone vile behaviour, on and off the field. His teams do not play as thugs.
Under Latham’s dictum, Bennett along with the majority of the rugby league community, are slaves of a Left-feminist brigade who, aided by an apparently approving mealy-mouthed media, are out to de-sex Australian males.
Laying Latham’s argument out in this way exposes how out of order it is.
The argument against rugby union does not hold water, either.
But I will let a rugby league tragic refute it. Sean Fagan runs an excellent blog Tribe13.com.au. Fagan probably knows more about the history of rugby league and the early history of rugby union than just about anyone alive.
He points out that there are errors of fact and understanding about the rugby codes in the Latham argument.
First the facts.
Fagan points out that proposal to change rugby league from unlimited tackles to the American system of limited plays came from England, not from the game in Australia.
The rugby league public in Australia loved the unlimited tackle game. You can prove this, Fagan points out, by looking at the great crowds that attended the play-off finals in the last season of unlimited tackles in 1965 (the St George – Souths grand final drew a crowd at the SCG of 78,065) and 1966 (St George – Balmain grand final crowd of 61,129).
Fagan, not me, makes the point that “rugby union is today getting close to where rugby league was in 1966 in the evolution of the game.”
This is an extremely interesting point. It confirms what many of us have written this year that the rugby union game at all levels has become a tremendous spectacle. And if the mark of a modern rugby game is its collision factor, the truth is that there are as many big hits in rugby union now as there are in rugby league.
Fagan’s final point is that rugby league ‘shouldn’t be so smug’ as to think that the rugby union code “cannot ever evolve a game that will rival the entertainment value of the 13-man game.”
I would argue that on the current evidence of the Tri Nations, Super Rugby and club rugby this season that this evolution has come about.
But I won’t press the point here. But I would make another, final point.
Latham does not acknowledge or reconcile with his arguments that the game he despises is played in front of vast crowds on all the continents of the globe. Next season it will run a World Cup tournament that will attract a viewing audience of billions of viewers. So much for ‘spectator boredom.’
The thing about Latham is that he thinks he knows a lot about politics and sports. In fact, he is a class-fixated bigot and bully who actually understands nothing about the topics he thinks he is an expert on.
Once again, in trying to be controversial for the sake of creating a controversy, Latham has put the boot into his own credibility as a commentator on important matters of Australian life.