Rugby union's dirty tactics in the UAE

The Game of Rugby started at the toff school by William Webb Ellis, named for the town next to English Rugby Powerhouses Leicester Tigers? The one with a completely linear history of organisations that founded and ran the game to this day after the merger of the International Rugby Football Board and Fédération Internationale de Rugby Amateur. Just clarifying.

For Rodney to ask the WRU to take responsibility and blame the actions of the UAERF is a clear misunderstanding of how the UAE works. Any organisation must be be licensed. All licensed organisations must be sponsered/supported by an Emirate. No tournaments can be run without Federal endorsement. Only Emirates can represent the UAE and organise national named tournaments. It is no surprise an ex-pat ran foul of the Emirate government if he did not cover off the above points. The arrest was Apolitical and was never intended to stick, it is just the process that you go through if you come to the attention of the law. When you live and work in a foreign country no matter what you think is fair or just, you have to repect their laws and interpretations, if you dont like it, then leave as they say.

Sorry Nerval. There was no disrespect or dismissive intent or brushing aside meant in using "etc.," I was just taking a lazy short cut rather than listing a few more examples. Sadly I'm not sure that bigotry in any form ever goes away. But you are right it should be opposed. And sometimes injustices continue to be unresolved in sport and life We will have to disagree about one of the reasons that RL came into being. There were of course more then one. But both in England and in Sydney it was about who controlled the game.

Agree with all you say and understand the lessons life has taught you! Except for one thing - "In fact you can argue that RL was created to replace/destroy RU" - no, not in any way, shape or form was it created for anything other than those class/social distinctions you talk about. And for that, in England and France especially, but elsewhere too it has been on the receiving end of sustained discrimination allied to hypocrisy. I don't think you should easily brush that aside with the bit ending "....etc." It's all well and goos to know that the Services, for example, now encourage rugby league - but it's a little bit too late, isn't it? The spread of rugby union and cricket was not impeded in this way, was it? And to think that a mere 120 years on, this kind of bigotry continues. I agree that, in the UAE, this is all very small beer. But either it is wrong, or it is right. What's happened there is morally repugnant, and it should be called out.

Nerval, I agree with what you say above (for some reason there was no reply button). The northern rugby clubs in England did not break away to form a new code. As you probably know that in England there has always been a class and geographic divide between North and South and the formation of what became the RL is part of that rich tapestry of their conflict. The establishment wants to protect their own. Hence the armed forces, unis etc. But as you know things have changed a little bit so there is an annual Oxford v Cambridge RL match. inter-services RL etc The problem with the arrest in UAE and the treatment of RL there and elsewhere comes down to fairness. And sadly as I was taught as a youngster when I complained of being unfairly treated I was told you are in for a rough time if you think the world is fair. Also most of these countries where RL has problems are generally not what we might call "democratic". But RU is not going to give RL a helping hand and neither does RL help RU. In fact you can argue that RL was created to replace/destroy RU. Only partially true. Particularly in Sydney it was a struggle, (won by RL), to control the "rugby game". Not to start a new code. So you can see from the RU side that any grief suffered by its long time rival is greeted with some satisfaction. By the way I am a RU follower, but suspect that had I been in the north of England in 1865 I would has become a "Northern Union" supporter.

Good for Newcastle. Not the same in England - where the game of "rugby" began - or France.

Growing up in Newcastle in the 1970s, rugby league was never ever referred to as 'rugby' by the 20,000 odd spectators who packed Newcastle No 1 Sports Ground to watch Wests v Souths. It was always League. Rugby League was never referenced. Rugby and the word 'Rugby' were considered abominations. It seems strange that Australian 'leaguies' are now making such a fuss about the name Rugby overseas when they haven't cared less about it or about League outside Australia since 1908. Maybe they are finally waking up that the world has left them behind.

regardless of what abbreviation or shorthand most people know the sport by there is a full distinct title for the sport which it has not adopted. And this non-adoption has flowed onto its member unions and national sporting boards and lead to abuse. Morrocco, the UAE, Russia, South Africa, Italy have all seeked to force Rugby League to enter as a subsidiary of Rugby Union, or to force all games of Rugby in their country be the official Rugby (that is Rugby Union). Not just lack of recognition, but after a submission for recognition has been received the government has come back and told the local RL body they aren't playing a different game to the Rugby Union body, or they've been told they're not allowed to use the term 'UAE Rugby League' because the Rugby Union body holds the rights to any official UAE rugby activites in or been told to play the right form of rugby or get out. UAE Rugby brought the charges against Sol and when they dropped the charges of impersonation he was released. If any of the other charges held any weight he wouldn't have been released. And if World Rugby is just going to let its unions do what they want the least they could do is take a small measure as to not enable the behavior. And there's very little cost to the change. other than a little lost catchiness its completely cost free. Are all those players unaware of the added title going to stop playing once they hear the full name? Even though almost no-one knows that there are two types of Gridiron the international body is called the International Federation for American Football. I think a change to World Rugby Union would be reasonable.

Again, I've enjoyed talking to you Red Son. At least you don't indulge in the schadenfreude of those who revel in the jailing of an innocent man. Again, re-read your second para and apply it to rugby league. Do you honestly think that when those rugby clubs broke away in 1895, they automatically played "rugby league football?" They just played football or rugby! That wasn't the official name of the sport. It was the organisation under whose jurisdiction those clubs flourished. "Rugby" refers to the common origin of these two separate and independent sports. Thus it is "union" and "league" that is the point of difference. Ultimately, this isn't a sport that should need any other sort's permission to exist. After a history that saw the sport excluded from the British Armed Forces and universities, shunned in schools, neglected by the establishment and with even amateur rugby league layers banned from playing union - while professional cricketers and footballers were accepted - rugby league has every right to feel a little touchy and fight its corner after a mere 120 years in existence.

You're right about the reference to "football" Red Son. Those who say that "rugby" (union) has always been known as "rugby" are wrong. It was originally known as "football" - the game was football with "Rugby" rules. Rugby league - and ancient English rugby league clubs in particular - have as much right to be called "rugby" clubs as anything rugby union club in the Southern hemisphere. Ultimately, that sport does not need the permission of rugby union to exist. In the UAE, the rugby union authorities seem to be of the contrary belief. They are the ones on a "losing cause."

You are quite right Nerval, north of England historically sees their "rugby" as rugby league. The need to distinguish only happens where both codes are played. I remember it being difficult to explain to Victorian and South Australian friends that there were two codes. They referred to the NSWRL and then the NRL as "rugby". Basically the world doesn't care, as used to be the case with most of Australia outside NSW and Qld.

Sorry about the late comment, but where does it say that the official name of the game is "rugby union football"? You are quite right that clubs use RUFC and RLFC to distinguish the code they play but that is only in ru/rl playing countries. Some clubs continue with only FC in their name. eg Sydney Uni F.C. play rugby union and Hull F.C. play rugby league. In Sydney all the clubs that played rugby union in the 1800s were simply called "Football Clubs" even when aussie rules and soccer arrived, all the clubs just called themselves FC. I could be corrected but even the RL clubs were originally referred to as "football clubs". South Sydney and Cronulla use occasionally "SSFC" and CSFC" on their merchandise - no mention of rugby league. I think you are on a losing cause.

I understand that the history of the FA and the FL and Premier League are a lot more complicated then I portrayed. What I was trying to point out that there is sometimes a difference in nomenclature for a game, its organisation and its competition. I'm not sure about Rodney's point that the official name of the sport is "rugby union football". I have an interest in rugby history (both ru and rl) and I haven't come across that. Where does it say that that is the official name? One of the points of interest is that Rodney quite correctly points out that rl clubs like Wigan, St Helens etc were rugby union clubs then they left the union to form their own organisation and league . Anf have a right to have "rugby" in their name. You could argue both ways if after more than 100 years rl has evolved to be something different to "rugby". Again when the north of England clubs left they still called themselves a "union". It was only in Sydney when the players left to form parallel clubs and a "rugby league". That the term "rugby league" came into use. Note no ru club left. As a generality, in Australia the players switched and in England it was the clubs. The problem is that in non rugby countries it is difficult to explain that there is a difference and long history of ru and rl. Problems in say Russia, is that only one code is recognised and hence gets the government money. RL can still be played but doesn't get the dosh. It's always about the money. However trying to get the original organisation, IRB or World Rugby, to change its name is a bit of a stretch. It's their name. They were there first. Think Actor Equity in UK, if you were born "John Smith" but there is already an actor with that name registered you have to use a different name even though its your birth name. RL came into being second. if they want to change it's up to them but you can not force another organisation to change just because it is a problem for you.

That's good for League. Super Rugby is struggling as is. They should definitely water it down further. Haha!

It wouldn't shatter anything. How would it stop any rogue union claiming this other, much smaller form of rugby should not come under its jurisdiction? League and Union mean nothing to most people, the key word is rugby and it's understandable (if not right) that Rugby Unions around the world lay claim to this word. Rugby Union has only ever been called as such because it was the rugby administered by the union - as opposed to the professional rugby that was played in leagues. As rugby union is now also played in leagues, and has been for decades, the distinction between the two sports is not so obvious by name. If you really want to avoid all confusion the only solution would be for rugby league to drop rugby and come up with a new name - however unfair that may be. And yes, it was originally called 'lawn tennis.' In the 19th century the term 'tennis' usually referred to what we now call real tennis - which is an older game played indoors. Since then lawn tennis has effectively taken control of the term tennis and other variants have a different or extra name. It's a pretty good analogy. The fact there are no problems (to my knowledge) like that experienced by this UAE Rugby League, is just evidence that this is probably not an issue of semantics like you suggest.

i cant wait to see the next UAE game, they are a fearsome side.

final comment 1-0 YAY!

Rugby vs Rugby Union vs Rugby League?: - World Rugby never calls the game Rugby Union. Only its members asociations are called unions. The game is Rugby - RL international league, NRL RL. Always uses the term league with rugby In the NRL 2014 annual report. There over 230 times rugby is mentioned. Everytime the next word its league. Everyday people can call it what they want. I recall in high school RL was called footie or rugby. Rugby was called Rugby Union or Union, someting played by the toffs. 30+ years on, bit different there today, now my old school plays both Union and League. But thats in Stafford Brisbane. I believe what leaguies call Union, is known almost universally known elsewhere as Rugby. And to people not in league countries, I believe league in Oz generally as the 'Australian or other version of Rugby'. Or those who know it better, knows it as league or rugby league. Whatever it is. I dont think any names should be changed. Except maybe a recognition that rugby union is actually acknowledged and known as Rugby outside league territory.

Thanks for the article, Rodney. Terrible development from UAE. But in that part of the world, there's ways of getting things done. And defying / not checking with the people in power isnt one of them. On the bright side, the cause has been raised.

Rodney, sorry to break it to you but if you're trying to get Rugby to add to it's name then you're fighting a losing battle mate. Re South Africa, to put it into perspective table tennis is far bigger than Rugby League in South Africa, as is 7's and Touch Rugby. So it makes complete sense in my mind that the authorities view League as a 'rugby' subsidiary which should fall under the SARU banner, even if SARU would prefer it not to. I grew up playing rugby at school in the late 80's and 90's, and I'm a huge fan and know all the Springbok history etc. But the first time I ever heard "Union" attached to the Rugby name was only in 2004, when I met some Aussies and Kiwi's in the USA. This was also the first time I learnt that another code of rugby existed, called League. I'd never heard of it before and I was amazed that another form of the game existed that I never knew about. I think the connection came about because of Lote Tuqiri playing for the Wallabies in the 2003 WC. The first time I ever saw what the game of League looked like was in 2005 when it was on TV in a pub. I have nothing against League and I'm actually quite interested to learn more about the game, but I'm just painting a picture here. Because League is a big sport in Australia, I think many Aussies have a disproportionate view of it's standing around the rest of world, including the rugby world and it's standing in relation to rugby (union). To be honest, I'm surprised at how well Australia performs in both Super Rugby and the Wallabies seeing as though rugby is not the only main winter sport (besides soccer) and the talent is divided out. Which is unlike the other top countries: New Zealand, South Africa, England, Ireland, Wales, France, Argentina etc. Re the UAE, sounds to me as though there's something a lot more involved if the fella went to jail. Can't see how World Rugby had anything to do with this or why they would care anyway? FYI - I watched the Origin game here in Australia for the first time ever the other night! :-)