*** i [sic] never said it wasn’t used, i [sic] said it shouldn’t be used.

I know that. And I drew your attention to the fact that since the terminology has been in use for over a century people probably aren’t going to pay attention to a lone internet warrior in his late teens.

***You seem ignorant of many facts presented,

Name one.

*** i appreciate that you are as stubborn about league as i am rugby,

Where am I defending league? I am merely correcting your errors.

*** but Stop claiming that im throwing around uncertifiedfacts when you are mirroring it yourself.

Name one “uncertified fact” that I have “thrown around”?

One of the strengths of Sean’s work is knowledge of primary sources. Much of the criticism seems to stem from an anachronistic view of history: ie, viewing sports and the culture surrounding them with modern eyes and interpreting events in this context.

It is for this reason that Sean’s work gets under the skin of Australian rules fans: they seem to assume that the game as it is today was played in the 1860s as if everything has always been as it is in the present. Similarly, many rugby union supports seem to think that the league code sprung into existence, seemingly out of nowhere, with 13 players a side etc, in 1895.

And here is an example of the terms “rugby” and “rugby league” being used interchangeably, in the same sentence, what’s more:

“The teaching of safe and correct tackle technique is of paramount importance whenever somebody starts to play rugby league, and yet we will always have some bumps and bruises in a game of rugby.” — 9/2/2010 — http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,25212,12532_5928269,00.html

If you watch the broadcasts you will note that this is also reflected in the spoken word.

Here is an example of the terminology in use:

“Castleford will probably want it to be wet – they like a heavy track and Terry Matterson likes them to play good basic rugby – hammer it down the middle and then let the likes of Joe Westerman run it from out wide.” — 12/2/2010 — http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,25212,12531_5944711,00.html

*** So in the uk, because leagueys call it rugby too (much like you want to call it rugby) it makes it rugby? No thanks.

Who said that rugby league is “rugby”, whatever you might mean by that? I merely said that the word is used to describe league in the UK. This is not a controversial proposition. It is fact.

*** League in the UK is getting into its own mess anyway.

I have never made any claim about the state of the game in the UK, and fail to see the relevance of this red herring. It doesn’t change the above.

*** I’m saying that at the school its name comes from they regard Rugby union as THE rugby football.

I have never claimed otherwise. You are setting up plenty of straw men, once more.

*** About the fact “Rugby” is Rugby union and is justified to use the name where league isn’t.

Isn’t justified in your opinion, not in reality. I don’t see the media who use the term rugby abroad to describe league knocking on your door to see whether or not you think they are justified. Your opinion is just that: an opinion.

*** I never said that Rugby league didn’t come from rugby, just that it shouldn’t claim the name of rugby.

Who said anything about league claiming a name. Since 1895 the term “rugby football” has been used. I am sure the RFL isn’t going to change things now because a teenager on a forum on the other side of the world disagrees with them.

*** I’ve been right about plenty and you know it.

I take it that you have been so right about things that you are unable to name any beyond stating that “you know it”? So be it. Remember when you claimed that the word Rugby wasn’t used in the name of the game in the UK until the 1920s? “There is a direct lineage between Rugby union and the game created at the rugby school. Rugby league adopted that name almost thirty years after it was split off.” That was a cracker statement of “fact” wasn’t it?

Here’s a spade if you want to keep digging yourself deeper…

*** well SeP, according to what i’ve read stockland has a record of an NRL pre season match at 8,000 so it has to hold atleast that.

When rigged up with temporary stands. It is supposed to be redeveloped to bring it up to 12,000, but that has been stuck in development hell.

*** Im taking what the rugbean society hold true as true, your taking what you see true and creating an argument around it too, its called debating.

*** you claimed that they both had equal rights to the lineage of Rugby football, they don’t. You’r skewing this as much as anyone. Rugby football is what you call Rugby union, you just (finally admitted that)

Reqd what I actually wrote instead of aping my “disregard” of your half-truths. I have said that both games are rugby football, which they are. I have further submitted that in the UK people involved with league call the game “rugby” or “rugby football” with impunity. Watch the Superleague telecasts if you don’t believe me. If Nine get off their backsides and start showing them again, that is.

You have retorted that rugby union types don’t think that a code that they have treated with antipathy should be able to associate itself with the name “rugby”. Who would’ve thought?

Before you turn twenty, take the opportunity to look at the name “rugby league”.

*** not too proud, just right

About what exactly? The fact that the Northern Rugby Football Union has the words “Rugby Football” in it? Nope, you erroneously claimed that such a thing didn’t come until the 1920s. The fact that rugby league is derived from rugby football in the 19th century? Nope.

What exactly have you been right about, beyond the bits that you agreed with me on?

@Siva: “not one rugby league trophy has a name pre 1895”

Leeds, who won the last three Super League premierships, were formed in 1870. Guess their name doesn’t count? :-p

Naturally the trophies themselves are from 1895 onwards as that’s when the new organisation was formed. No one claimed any different. You and rf are good at setting up straw men this morning.

*** ““rugby football” as a true meaning is regarded as rugby union, in relation to the old rugbean society. SeP minus one

“As a true meaning”? You have just defined the term rugby football to suit yourself. Disregard.

*** The IRB governed “Rugby Football” and still does to this day, whereas the RFL governs rugby league, proving its the exception rather than the rule. SeP Minus two

No one claimed they didn’t. You have just set up a straw man.

*** League is derived from the game played at the Rugby school, Rugby is the same, evolved sport played at the Rugby school. SeP Minus three

I agree. In fact, I said as much above. Finally you concede you agree with me.

*** you seem to only correct the errors made by Ruggers, i havent seen you respond to a leaguer who was wrong once.

I haven’t yet seen you concede that you have made a mistake. Even in this thread you got the capacity of Stockland Park wrong by a factor of four, and made a mistake about the naming of the NU/RFL. Too proud to admit that you’re wrong?

“if 12 rugby union clubs from nz decided to form another sport competition and changed its rules I don’t think they would have the rights to say they started at rugby schools”

Nobody said that NU competition started at the Rugby school. Merely, that Rugby Football started at the Rugby School. Do you dispute that Rugby Football started at the Rugby School? I don’t.

“well the argument was over the name, which lies with a direct etymological and organisational link”

Etymology, as I am sure you will claim to be aware, is the history of words and their meaning. I have just demonstrated that the etymology of “rugby league” is derived from the terminology “rugby football”. You incorrectly claimed that there was no “direct linage”. Minus one to rugbyfuture.

The organisational link has never been in dispute, because as I noted above, a new organisation was formed in 1895. The name of both rugbies are derived from organisations that administered “rugby football”. Therefore, this does nothing to strengthen your argument. Minus two to rugbyfuture.

My claim is simply that both sports are derived from what was played at Rugby school, which of course they are. You seem to be inferring that some brand new sport sprung into existence in 1895. This is simply untrue. Hull FC, founded in 1865, for example, continued playing rugby football in 1894, 1895 and 1896. It didn’t matter that they joined a different organisation.

“(are you going to say you’re just trying to even out the ideas here because you’re not, you’re completely bias)”

I am correcting your errors. How that makes one “completely bias” [sic] I do not know.

You’re changing the argument now that you lost it.

Both games have a common ancestry. This is undeniable. Nice attempt at sidestepping the fact that you were shown to be wrong.

Union is no more the same game that was played prior to the split then is League. The rules of both have changed immensely.

Missing the point RF. The game played has the same ancestry and changed over time.

And the full name of the Northern Union at the time was the Northern Rugby Football Union. So, in a nutshell, you’re wrong about the name being adopted 30 years later.

Both code’s ancestry lies with the rugby school. The type of football played was Rugby Football. The Rugby Football Union organised it. When 20-odd clubs formed their own organisation in 1895, it was the Rugby Football League (as it is still called today). It wasn’t a brand new sport created on the spot with fewer players. Over time the rules have changed, however, the ancestry of both sports is in the Rugby school.

Perhaps you didn’t get a proper education, yourself.

For what it is worth, Eddie and Stevo in Super League broadcasts in the UK will refer to the game as “rugby” or “rugby league” interchangeably. Furthermore, they even use phrases such as “that’s some good rugby football”.

Furthermore, the full name of the ARL is the “Australian Rugby Football League”. Read their annual reports on their website if you don’t believe me.

Stockland Park holds nothing like 12,000. Try about 3,000.

Fox Sports.

Looks like Sth Auckland is from the Siva school of truth.

He in Queensland, AFL is the game. For example, there is a sign on the fence of Belmont State School for junior sign ons at the moment that says: “Come and play AFL”.

Pretty straightforward.

Siva, why the mention of rugby league? Why the need to turn this in to a code war?

Nice work re-wording your false claims about the “very popular” Gold Coast tournament. Nice sidestep of the fact that the IRB figures which claim that Sri Lanka’s playing figures are 150% of Australia’s as well.

With all of this sidestepping you must be a good player, even if you are a poor debater. 😉

Siva, after your earlier claims about the Gold Coast tournament which proved utterly false you’ll forgive me if I wait for someone reliable to describe the state of rugby in Sri Lanka.

Indeed the IRB website proclaims that there is 121,000 registered players in Sri Lanka and 100 clubs. So each club has over 1200 players on average? Since the IRB says that Australia only has 84,450 players, is there anyone here who seriously thinks that rugby is much bigger in Sri Lanka than Australia?

How about China? According to the IRB there is 1 registered club with 4810 players and 55 referees.

IRB stats are, well, rubbery at best.

In what sense is the A League continuing to grow?

So there was no cricket in the 1990s but there is now?

The Southport School is the most prestigious school on the Gold Coast. It’s 2009 Tuition fees range from $8,994-$15,136.80 Boarding fees are $14,151.20. In what sense is it what you disdainfully call “a 2 bit bogan school”?

How about live coverage in Queensland?

What’s worse than being shown on delay? Being shown on delay when there is an hour long disruption to play (say, rain) and being forced to wait for the match to restart when it is already on in real life…