The ‘only an Emirati can be president of a sporting orginization’ claim also doesn’t hold water.
By UAE Rugby’s own logic their president of UAE Touch Rugby ( a kiwi- John Larkins) is also in breach of this edict. And he’s approved by UAE Rugby!

The only unique charge that could’ve been leveled at League was impersonation of UAE Rugby. Sol was only released when he admitted to impersonating UAE Rugby. All other charges are farcical red herrings which either have never been actioned historically or don’t end up with a gaol scentence (eg. overstaying your visa doesn’t lead to being arrested and held indefinitely, it leads to you being deported).

The apology that came through social media is likely to have been a response written by UAE Rugby, who should’ve legally gained access to his social media accounts considering he was officially ‘impersonating’ UAE Rugby.

I think it should be an ethical imperative considering the vast misconceptions about the scope of World Rugby’s dominion.
Not only unions have abused this but multiple national sporting bodies have run out with the line that ‘there is only one rugby’ and asking Rugby league to form as a branch under the existing Rugby federation or Union.

That’s not Rugby Union’s problem but they’re certainly not helping things by insisting on only being called by the first part of their title.
And it is just the first part of the title.
A sport dosen’t change its official full title just depending on how aware people are of similar sports.
Rugby is a mutual term for both sports which are differentiated by their use of League or Union, to title an organization ‘World Rugby’ implies to the unaware individual that that organisation has power over all Rugby, rather than Rugby Union.
Rugby Union Football and Rugby League Football are the official full titles, and you can see this through all the clubs with RUFC and RLFC.

How daunting would tacking a ‘ Union’ on the end of World Rugby be?
The implication that there is more than one Rugby doesn’t even have to arise at that point, the boundaries really just need to be clear so abuse and misinterpretation are limited.

And the title originally was World Rugby (Union) ? But i can understand why they changed that, pretty mediocre

just to be fair there are a couple bits that were cut out that added a bit of balance to this-

There was a concession to why Union would like to avoid the full title heading into new frontiers:
” Uniquely among the sporting world Rugby Union prefers to leave off half of its title when presenting itself to new frontiers. A move born of the assumption that the people would only ever know the one rugby so its simpler to just know the one word. A move which is being proven wrong on multiple locales, but an understandable motive at least.”

and the final sentence came out a little more accusatory than i liked. I originally submitted:
“While they may be pioneers for the of Rugby concept in a majority of places unless some cataclysmic event occurs in the next couple of decades there is always going to be 2 Rugbys, therefore it is fair and ethical to acknowledge this fact and cut any sort of enablement of abuse and misconceptions born from stubbornly holding onto the ‘World Rugby’ title.”

No other sport had ever been sanctioned for not being GAYSW approved before operating. Famously the UAE cricket team made the World Cup before cricket was recognised as a sport.

The UAE Rugby League applied for recognition 8 years before this whole fiasco occurred as many other sports had done before league it was decided to operate in the mean time or not achieve anything at all. This wasn’t the determining factor, or at least it shouldn’t have been.

The average italian yes,
the problem is the legislatures and expert bodies they appoint not knowing the difference.

If your job is to be aware of all the sport going on in your country and to benchmark it would be very advisable that you are informed on the subject matter.
I don’t think it would be acceptable for the Australian Sports Commission to say that Canadian football is a subset of American Football.
Any they’re closer to each other than Rugby League is to Rugby Union.

There’s reasonable ignorance and then there is persistent reckless ignorance where governments have decided to make themselves ‘unaware’ of the distinction between the two codes.
Like in Russia where league was a recognized sport and then was denied recognition months after it was announces RU 7s would be in the Olympics.
And South Africa still doesn’t recognize league despite decades of protests and formal support from the sport we are being compared to.
Any body of reasonable competence can recognize the difference between the codes and the precedent is well established for them being seen as separate sports.

In countries where league struggles for recognition the problem generally isn’t misunderstandings or ignorance, rather persistent legislative biases still hang over.
Rugby League isn’t being given a fair chance at resources and support.
Recognition doesn’t entitle anything, governments don’t have to give out benefits if they think sports are too small or irrelevant. But when a sport is guaranteed to get no governmental support it drives it away from participatory activities and more towards core, profit making exercises.
Its extremely difficult to expand especially as a small sport when you aren’t being supported in getting people involved non-commercially.

The handicap worked when the gap was ~$1mil AUD, but its tripled since the last ESL team (Leeds) won it.

Also with the cap going up each year teams have been able to retain competition winning lineups more than they used to.
Rather than being picked apart before the new season most clubs have been able to keep relatively stable rosters after winning their premierships.
The Storm and Roosters in particular.
This has ‘weakened’ the handicap to less than what it was, but no handicap is going to be sufficient unless the ESL pick up their game.

The WCS can’t be like the AMCO cup because it will quickly lose engagement.
Especially when they want the competition to expand the ESL have to be willing to make some sacrifices to keep the showpiece alive.

If the WCC is to stay around the Super League really need to raise the salary cap.

While Australian dominance is sort of workable to an extent.
But eventually its going to lead to declining Australian interest in the concept.

Especially since the Super League just recently brought in P & R it would seem the time was right for at least some shift up.

sorry mate got a bit carried away.

I just can’t wait until my Heaven Highlanders jersey arrives mate. Exciting times.

IF RUGBY UNION IS THE GAME THEY PLAYED IN HEAVEN WHY HASN’T GOD DIVINELY INTERVENED AND MADE IT THE NO.1 SPORT AROUND THE GLOBE?
HUH?

EXACTLY! RUGBY UNION IS DYING A RAPID DEATH ACROSS THE GLOBE!
THE NRC IS SYMPTOMATIC OF THE RAPID DECLINE OF RUGBY UNION ONCE GOD DECLARES HIS ALLEGIANCE TO THE TRUE PROFESSIONAL CODE!
ITS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE WE HAVE A HEAVEN SIDE PLAYING IN THE NRL AND THEN WHO’LL BE THE INTERDIMENSIONAL CODE!

:^)

we’re not just talking about on field success and financial backing.
You also have to consider what these teams represent.

The tigers are sitting on half a million odd people, not including the liechardt portion of the club.
If you lose that team then you leave those people.

Even with the flimsy identity the Tigers currently have they’ve sunk 15 years into creating an identity around that community.
There is a generation growing up now who only know Wests Tigers.
This generation wont accept a new team thrust upon them and they will resent you for taking the other team away.
GWS is a great example of how thrusting a new team on an area technically represented by another team goes.

In the end the South West is way to valuable to lose.
Even in any optimal set up of clubs representing broad areas the South West would be one of them.
Wests could probably do a lot more to engage the area, but its without a doubt the area is vital any way you look at it.

In terms of crowds and community appeal the Roosters and Manly have really not been able to capitalize on their potential.
If we’re looking at culling clubs Cronulla and Manly represent the smallest population bases and Easts have frequently disappointing in terms of crowds and fans compared to neighboring clubs.
I’m not advocating the axing of any of these clubs but these three clubs would have to be the most expendable when factoring how valuable all the other clubs are.

When the competition is making $40-50 million profit a year you’d have to think the teams attached to that competition are relatively stable.
There has been 15 years of the same clubs basically representing the same areas, the NRL has had plenty of opportunities to move and relocate these clubs but it has chosen not to.
Boards are ‘in crisis’ and clubs have gone into seasons without sponsorship but we aren’t seeing clubs enter administration or withdraw from the NRL.
We can be relatively ceritain that clubs aren’t going to go bankrupt and even if they are in debt they will be bailed out by NRL HQ.

The stadiums issue is closely related to the fact the NRL has not had any considerable investable capital up until this point and thus has not been able to direct infrastructure construction through investment.
The AFL was able to set up a second central stadium in Melbourne only after it invested its own money.
Once the NRL starts putting in money the grounds will start to suit the NRL a lot more.

the NRFL is yet untested.
So far I can only think of a couple athletes of the top of my head that have gone from American Football to Rugby (league or union) and both of them were outside backs. The crossover from League to Union and visa versa is too far a gap for most players, going from a stop start impact sport to one reliant on individual skill and stamina is going to be a huge bridge to overcome.

And this isn’t just one player who can be put into a simple position, they’re making teams full of inexperienced players.

I’m skeptical about the whole project until it can produce consistently good transitioning athletes.

RL has relatively simple mechanics (for some positions) but makes up for it with a high level of skill required to play in the elite leagues.
Almost anyone could run up as fast as they can straight into the opposition but to make the NRL you’re gonna have to be pretty damn good at it if any team is going to pick you as a prop.

And then those mechanics will be implemented in complex ways, dummy runs and off the ball running, targeting areas to run into, short passes close to the line to other players, various tackling techniques, running techniques ect.

Just because the basic elements are simple dosen’t make a sport simple. its how the elements work which makes a game simple or complex.
Rugby Union isn’t complex because of the multiple skillsets the players have to learn but the tactical battles and play for field position rather than just directly trying to score.
American Football has simple core mechanics but it produces some of the most complex sequences of play of any sport.

I don’t think the AFL method of scouting alternative talent would really be effective for Rugby League.
Rugby League dosen’t have a position like ruckman, where the physical attributes outweigh a lifetime of conditioning.
A freak of nature 7foot tall player will be able to outplay someone 6’6 who’s played the position their entire life.

There are very few players who could dominate a rugby league position because they’re built right.
The best league can try is to lure NFL rejects/ RU athletes, but they’d have to be very special athletes to be worth the sort of investment and risk a code-switch brings.

There’s also a massive difference in how Rugby League and AFL are run.
Without a draft and multiple leagues to work with League is a lot more decentralized. Each club does its own scouting and fills its own holes.
You sort of touch on it but dont really explore what that means.

The AFL have central systems to share players around and are the only professional structure for players to exist inside of while rugby league has several professional structures.
The NRL supports international rugby league but with the main goal of propagating international competition while the AFL supports international efforts so that they can bring back talent to support the AFL.

The NRL supports the RLIF and the RLIF gives domestic bodies extra funding depending on how they’re going.
The AFL holds combines to bring in talent to the AFL while the NRL will support domestic leagues and help set up internationals to propel the sport in other countries.
The AFL controls international AF while the NRL is a domestic league which supports international RL. Two very different roles and two very different worlds to work with.

There are international players that have made their way to Aus.
Rugby League has a key advantage for scouting in the international scene it has.
International players based overseas have been drafted by professional clubs, eg. Canada have sent Chris Chalmers who plays for Wenty (NSW Cup) and are sending 4 more this year, US players have been circulating for almost a decade (Taylor Welch, Kristian Freed), Serbia have had players scouted to the French league, PNG have had players picked up by ESL and NRL clubs after every WC ect..

NRL and Super League clubs have also partnered with overseas clubs.
eg. Leeds Rhinos have partnered with the Atlanta Rhinos, Parramatta Eels have partnered with British Columbia Rugby League.

International recruiting is entirely driven by clubs in Rugby League because of the decentralized structure of the sport, a combine isn’t really possible.

yeh nation swapping is something i’d like to see phased out.

but the growth is clearly evident for all looking.
in 2008, in a World Cup year there were a total of 28 international test matches.
This year there’s been double the amount.

there were 4 national teams (or conglomerates like the Latin Heat) that played for the first time this year.

Funny you mention Fiji rugby league because its exploded since the 2008 world cup.
From the brink of bankruptcy its they now have a thriving domestic scene and are going to enter a team into the NSW Cup next year.

Progress at the top is always going to be slow because matching or even getting near Australia (the country with the most players and resources in the world dedicated to the sport) is a massive task but the code is making rapidly expanding its footprint at the minnow level.

RL heritage rules are the same as practically every other sport.
Nation swapping is tacky, but someone with parents from one nation can choose to run out for them if they want to whether they’re playing cricket, RU, League or any other sport.

And growing a sport takes time,
you can’t seriously be expecting more competitors to drop in to a sport just because an underdog finally managed to cause a boilover.
England were gotting pumped by 40-50 fairly regularly and New Zealand were also not far away from those kinds of defeats at the time either.

Both of these teams are much better on paper than 2008, Australia would be almost around the same place we were.
Meanwhile the second tier is starting to seriously pressure the first. Samoa have proven at their best they are a credible threat as the best 4th nation to date.

Progress is slow but its happening.
This year was Australia’s least successful year (discounting SL) since 1978 by win percentage.

At the moment i’d have to agree with you,
Australia is still ahead by ~ the same distance based on raw talent with the closing in the gap being due to declines in form and injuries.
Keeping in mind an effective Australia A couldn’t more than 30 on a massively under strength NZ team in the mid-year test I think we can say that it isn’t just injuries that have lead to closer matchups.

But heading into 2017 Australia is going to have to make an interesting transition.
But Australia’s best players of the past 10 years are heading towards retirement age.

Cronk, JT, Smith and Slater will all be 35 by the time the next world cup rolls around.
The all star Queensland 1,6,7 and 9 are past their peak and heading towards retirement age.

Corey Parker and Gallen will be over 35.
Only a third of the squad we took to England in 2013 will be under thirty by the next world cup.
And the best player among them is playing Gridiron.

Many of the players out for the 4nations aren’t going to be around for 2017 and the Australian B team is going to have to step up to the A role.

England are definately a work in progress in need of a better halfback and a much better kicking game, however New Zealand are shaping up as a much more complete outfit every year.
They’re showing depth and have prospects in several positions coming through the rank.
Hoffman, Hiku, RTS and DWZ could all fit into the fullback role.
RTS will probably shape as first choice, but they have enough depth now to remain a present threat even if the first choice isn’t available

population is a factor though.
The Super Rugby final was played between a team representing nearly 7.5 million people in a city which has a population greater than New Zealand (over 15x that of wellington).
London is over 24x the size of Wellington, even with higher prices and a further walk were not talking like for like.

For a city the size of Wellington I wouldn’t be too upset.
Perhaps if the kicked off earlier they may have had more attendees, but compared to the attendances for Aus v NZ of previous years in similarly sized cities I wouldn’t be too upset.
Newcastle got just a tick over 30k in a city with 100k more people.
Canberra and Townsville drew similar crowds, although their stadiums had a lower capacity limiting how much they could fit.

Could’ve done better, but nothing to complain about.

Reducing interchange would lead to more injuries, more wrestle and less active play.
Part of the big blokes being more tired is they are more likely to hurt themselves or hurt others due to sheer exhaustion and laziness.
The injury lists are already pretty sizable, and fatigue will stack quickly for players with rep duties.

And with more tired players coaches will focus more on more on conserving energy and slowing down the play. Time wasting will just get worse and teams will try whatever they can get away with to slow the play and give themselves time.

And having players not able to come back on limits your subs to 4, unless we extend the bench.

I feel that the NRL should try to tighten the game and squeeze out stoppages and natural breaks to try and introduce a little bit more fatigue before introducing a major change like reducing interchange.

There’s no incentive to reconfigure the stadium.
The government would miss out on ~15 games revenue a year on its marquee stadium for what benefit?
No new NRL teams are going to move in, the wanderers are very unlikely to move in, the Tahs aren’t going anywhere.
There’s no benefit in terms of revenue.
And if GWS ever got big they would have nowhere to go, causing even more problems

The european clubs have had the ability to pinch and pillage for at least a decade.
The French league’s salary cap is almost triple the NRL’s now but from memory it used to be 6 times as big in 2003/4.
The problem is French clubs haven’t really sought to dine out since the Mason experiment, preferring to throw the big money at existing rugby stars rather than risk it on someone who may not handle the transition.

Burgess and SBW both have individual ambitions which have driven their moves and not many other players would have the balls to drop a sport they’re good at for a complete unknown. If there is going to be a mass exodus the French top 14 and the Aviva Premiership are going to have to put in a lot of the effort the draw these players.

The only way Union is going to overtake league in Australia is through targeting the juniors.
A local junior costs exponentially less then courting an established star from another code with substantially less risk.
The transformation has to be made here if anything is going to happen.

For regular season matches I have no problems with a draw deciding things.
But I don’t think golden point can be abandoned for finals as its the quickest way of finding a result.

And in a tough physical game like rugby league the quickest way of finding a result is going to be the fairest on the team who qualifies for the next week of finals.
playing 10 more minutes than your opponents is a massive impediment (let alone opening the possibility for 20) if you’re going to have to get up next week against (probably) better opposition.

Golden try itself has numerous flaws,
when the game is on the line teams will priorities safety over flare and attacking brilliance. Dragging out the game and instigating a grinding passage of play until the other team makes an error or the referee finds a penalty.
It has the potential to drag the game on for extreme periods of time which are unsustainable in a finals format (unless its the grand final).
Golden try also invalidates other scoring methods and disadvantages the teams that rely on them. Penalties and field goals become obsolete unless a points cap is introduced so teams can score the equivalent of a try (first to 4 points through any means) which is unlikely considering the name ‘golden try’. Its a system that would favor play styles and severely disadvantage valid teams (consider how the 2010 Dragons would handle golden try).

And the other option of enforcing fixed extra time has similar problems to Golden Try and would only be useful in my eyes in a grand final scenario.
Forcing a game to extend for 10 or 20 extra minutes when it could be solved within 2 or 3 is not ideal and could lead to unnecessary injuries.
It would also probably lead to negative tactics with teams unlikely to be willing to give their opponents a chance in their half to score by any means.
Although extra time at least has the possibility of last minute recourse which could be exciting and it may lead to some risk taking early with the knowledge that its possible to catch up if you fall behind.
I wouldn’t mind extra time implemented for Grand Finals, but it would be too obtrusive for the preceding matches imo.

Its not a particularly bad thing here in Sydney.
The local district competition and churches competitions co-exist fairly peacefully, they’re generally not very serious leagues.
players with ambition and talent get scouted out of the churches system early on while players happy to play in a friendly league settle with the churches leagues.

One of my team mates from u10s made was scouted by a representative squad and was filtered into the official structures, he’s now in the Sydney FC system. His brother is in the WSW system and made an under age Australian team after being scouted.
Most serious players opt out of churches at a young age.

Its not a particularly serious set of leagues (although they do have representative teams).
I played in a churches league when I was younger and its not particularly religious either.
I had more Muslim team mates than christian ones for the majority of my time there, its mainly just a fun kickabout league. No real harm IMO

Average crowds for this finals week are around the modern average for this point.
qualifying and semis are much higher than premlim finals.

I big factor in the decline in TV audiences has been the NRL’s own streaming service coming in. NRL fans generally skew younger and are more likely to take up technological solutions than other sports fans.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-round-tv-ratings-plummet-almost-10-per-cent-on-2014-figures/story-fni3fbgz-1226855693237

while the figures for this years uptake haven’t been released, I would expect it to be substantial considering the NRL app provides a cheaper option than foxtel for people who don’t care about the other shows and events on foxtel and just watch the NRL.
Especially with a free 2 week trial that has to have dragged some eyeballs away.

Nrl crowds have never matched Afl crowds, its really not worth mentioning.

10 minutes is a bit much for a team backing up the week after.
80 minutes of close footy is already draining, 100 minutes is going to leave the winning team with a severe handicap for the following week.

Golden point may be anticlimactic, but it also gets a result as quick as possible.
Which in a finals scenario is the fairest outcome for whoever wins.

Although I agree in regular season it should just stand as a draw, if they’re equal after 80 they both deserve a point.

I have to disagree.
There is plenty of talent in the lower tiers and these tiers are only getting bigger and bigger.
The QLD cup will have 14 teams next year and the NSW cup will have 12 the year after.

There are plenty of feeder teams with quality players.
The Sharks, despite their poor performances, are credit to the NRL’s depth. They’ve been missing 5+ players for a majority of the year due to injuries, suspensions, sackings, you name it.
Yet even despite all those handicaps they’ve beaten the Roosters (a team which may yet win the minor premiership) and 4 other teams this year.

They shouldn’t be able to beat anyone with all the handicaps they’ve had, but they have beaten the defending premiers without a host of stars.
They’re at least equal to last years eels and nowhere near as bad a former wooden spoon laggards.

The Broncos currently have 5 affiliates QLD cup teams.
I don’t think there’s a problem with talent depth, but talent spread.
A new Brisbane or even QLD team has plenty of talent to tap into if they can convince some of the affiliates to flop.

There are currently 24 2nd grade teams, which will rise to at least 26 by 2016.
There’s enough talent if the administrators know how to use it.