Rugby League really gives me the shits

[BDA]

I've always preferred union to league as it offers a lot more variety. But I'm not going to start bagging league. I watch a lot of league. It's a good product, one that is easy to understand and generally skillful. Personally I'm sort of turned off by people on this board talking about how shit league is. Given that my closest friends are, predominantly league fans, I've had to cop my fair share of abuse over the years about how shit rugby is and how league is a much better product. Some of those friends have changed their choon over the years, as rugby is a game which requires a built up knowledge to enjoy. Other friends remain staunchly ignorant. I'm surprised that those friends cant see the qualities of rugby that make it such a great game. But at the end of the day I'm a sports fans. I'm equally surprised that people on this board cant see the qualities of league that make it so enjoyable. There were some great games of league on the weekend (Raiders/Roosters + Rabbits/Warriors).

At the end of the day, to each his own. I'm happy that I can sit and enjoy a game of league or a game of union, athlough I have a true passion for the latter. I'll even sit and watch an AFL game now and then, although my passion is limited as I don't know any of the players or teams so its hard to watch it in context. I feel a bit sorry for sports fans who's enjoyment of footy is limited to one code. Variety is the spice of life.

If someone wants me to explain why I prefer union over league, well I could write an essay on the subject. But it's more about what I love about union than what I hate about league.

On a side note I think both games have some down-sides which I’d like to see addressed.
For league:-

• The biggest problem with league is the obsessive use of the video ref. They inspect every try, even the most straight forward, ad nausea. It totally kills the momentum of the game. Rugby takes a sensible approach to video ref although I’ve noticed it’s been used more frequently this year. I’d like to see them keep an eye on this to make sure rugby does not go the way of league.
• The scrums are a joke. Allow a bit of pushing I say. Perhaps the silliest rule I’ve ever seen is when a team wants to stop the clock they have to pack down a scrum, and remain packed, meanwhile the other team can just take their time and don’t need to pack down until their good and ready. Stupid. Change it.
• Does league actually need two refs”. No. it’s over kill.

Rugby

• Penalties at scrum time are a major problem. It is often very hard for referees to decipher which team is to blame for a scrum collapse etc. scrum tactics are becoming more cunning and referees are deciding games. I like Kaffer’s suggestion that teams cant take a shot at goal off a scrum penalty. Either tap and go or kick for touch.
• I’d like to see the clock stop when the ball is either in touch or during scrum time (sorta like NFL). This would add probably another 10minutes of rugby to every game. It is horrible sometimes when you sit and watch one scrum eat up 5 minutes of the game.

 

[USARugger]

haha, I read your 'quote' of mine and thought 'I never said that!'.till I got it. Then I laughed. Sorry bout the long windedness of it.

It's good to get an external perspective in it as you have just done, prob we here are a bit more embroiled in the leeg vs union aspect of it, and I suspect it is perhaps more of a NSW and QLD thing than australia wide, and even then only applies in aus rather than SA or the NH countries?

Maybe our 'hatred' is more towards idiots like gus gould heh heh rather than leeg per se.

It's interesting that you think it might fly in the states, is it that they are sports mad or is there something intrinsic in the game or an existing fan base of some sort ripe for tapping?

I did meet a few yanks over for the RWC in wellington, they at least where pretty enthusiastic. If it was you then hello again haha.

I 'somewhat' understand the League vs. Union thing and I really think that for Rugby to grow they need to pull themselves away from that. Focusing heavily on the differences between Rugby and League in a highly focus marketing campaign would be a good start I think.

The States in general are sports mad and there is a rapidly growing base of support for Rugby here. Whether or not USA Rugby can properly harness this and stop mismanaging the living shit out of everything they touch is something I've waxed poetic on these boards about before. The most popular sport here in terms of in-stadium attendance is the NFL by a pretty huge margin, Americans fucking love contact sports. Aside from all that even capturing a small sector of the American sports market is a big deal because of how enormous the market is as a whole.

Sadly I wasn't in attendance at the last RWC, maybe 2015 if I can save up some money to get across to London. Probably not though because that's right about when my student loans should be kicking me in the ass

 

[Ignoto]

Disagree. I agree with Torn Hammy - for instance, during the time it takes to pack a scrum after a knock on, they will complete a set of six tackles in League, almost the same for a deep clearing kick resulting in a lineout.

I'm curious to know why there's such a huge fascination with how much "action" goes on in a game? While I agree with that some aspects of Union need to be sped up, I don't agree with the idea of the ball always being in play.

Have our attention spans really gone out the window that we need have something bright and colourful happening every second? Are we really unable to pass 1-2 minutes talking to the person next to us (where at the game I'm sure it'd be a friend/family member) or at home grabbing a drink/going to the toilet.

While I can watch odd League game to pass the time, the lack of a contest on the ball bores me. Then the complete dis-regard for players safety ie the Shoulder Charge hasn't been cracked down on, three-four gang tackles on a single runner and a extremely dangerous spear tackle was given the worlds softest suspension.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

On a side note I think both games have some down-sides which I’d like to see addressed.
For league:-

• The biggest problem with league is the obsessive use of the video ref. They inspect every try, even the most straight forward, ad nausea. It totally kills the momentum of the game. Rugby takes a sensible approach to video ref although I’ve noticed it’s been used more frequently this year. I’d like to see them keep an eye on this to make sure rugby does not go the way of league.
• The scrums are a joke. Allow a bit of pushing I say. Perhaps the silliest rule I’ve ever seen is when a team wants to stop the clock they have to pack down a scrum, and remain packed, meanwhile the other team can just take their time and don’t need to pack down until their good and ready. Stupid. Change it.
• Does league actually need two refs”. No. it’s over kill.

Rugby

• Penalties at scrum time are a major problem. It is often very hard for referees to decipher which team is to blame for a scrum collapse etc. scrum tactics are becoming more cunning and referees are deciding games. I like Kaffer’s suggestion that teams cant take a shot at goal off a scrum penalty. Either tap and go or kick for touch.
• I’d like to see the clock stop when the ball is either in touch or during scrum time (sorta like NFL). This would add probably another 10minutes of rugby to every game. It is horrible sometimes when you sit and watch one scrum eat up 5 minutes of the game.

I agree that a 'one sport' fan is not really a sports fan. I love AFL and having moved here from Canada 5 years ago, I have really enjoyed playing Aussie rules for the past 4 years. I love rugby, hockey, soccer and tennis as well.
personally i just find league to be, as I've said on this forum before, a significantly inferior product in terms of entertainment, skill and tactics to its contact sport counter parts. it is a very, boring and more one dimensional version of football (gridiron) in my opinion and to be honest i don't understand how people can argue that it's a better game than AFL, Rugby or soccer (its primary competitors).

I never grew up with a league v union rivalry and my only exposure to league before coming to Australia was knowing that Mat Rogers, Sailor, Turqiri and Henry Paul came from Rugby League. I had never seen a game until I went to the Kangaroos vs NZ at AAMI Park a few years ago.
From as unbiased a perspective as can probably be offered on this site (in the sense that i was never influenced by any one side of the argument..yes i grew up playing union, but if league was a great game and really exciting then there is no reason i wouldn't like it...exhibit A being my love of AFL) but league is terribly boring and one dimensional. the same play happens over and over again. i know there are subtleties beyond hit it up, hit it up, hit it up etc then kick, but they are well and truly limited.

it's very much a game where a single playmaker runs the show. Union, AFL, Soccer offer multiple play makers. In union - 7, 8, 9, 10 and at least 15 provide significant influence on the direction of the game. this provides variety in attack and overall game plan. i just don't get that from league. i get what is effectively 12 guys who are all the same and maybe 1 or 2 who are different in body type and style of play. they create all the plays - every one else hits it up.

the 'dead-fish' routine is laughable...what are they doing?? the scrum is pointless, they might as well go to a line of scrimmage like in football.
league seems to me to be stuck in purgatory between union and gridiron...gridiron came from league and had much of the same rules until the early 1900s...the game wasn't overly popular, the rules were changed (in both canada and america) and the game took off, because the revised product was much more entertaining and multi-dimensional.
i won't say i hate league, but i just don't understand how, with all the product on offer, people choose league as their number 1 sport on a large scale.
I know union kicked itself in the proverbial balls post 2003 world cup with the advance of the South African and English game plan at the time. those were dark days for rugby and the sport copped a hiding, i think everywhere. the IRB didn't act soon enough to change the rules to enhance the game and from probably 2001 - 2007, we were left with what at times was a very boring game, particularly when south africa and or england were playing.
the game is definitely on the up at the moment though.

I completely agree with your comments re time stopping when the ball is out and when the scrum is being set. a lot of time gets wasted for no reason. those stoppages would increase ball in play time, therefore increasing the length of the game and thus allowing more advertising...to me it's a no brainer.
I also think more has to be done around the scrum. it's better than it was, but perhaps some thought needs to be given to an engagement, then a contest at the scrum. or bringing the players closer together before the 'power hit'

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

I'm curious to know why there's such a huge fascination with how much "action" goes on in a game? While I agree with that some aspects of Union need to be sped up, I don't agree with the idea of the ball always being in play.

Have our attention spans really gone out the window that we need have something bright and colourful happening every second? Are we really unable to pass 1-2 minutes talking to the person next to us (where at the game I'm sure it'd be a friend/family member) or at home grabbing a drink/going to the toilet.

While I can watch odd League game to pass the time, the lack of a contest on the ball bores me. Then the complete dis-regard for players safety ie the Shoulder Charge hasn't been cracked down on, three-four gang tackles on a single runner and a extremely dangerous spear tackle was given the worlds softest suspension.

agree.
union's greatest asset is the perpetual contest a la soccer, afl, hockey etc. the ball is always in play and when, for whatever reason the play stops, it then goes to a contest...be it a scrum a line out or a ruck in rugby or a face off in hockey, throw in/corner in soccer or a boundary throw in/ruck in afl. the ball is not gifted to anyone, when play resumes you have to fight for it from the outset. league - no. you get tackled. the game stops, you reset and you get the ball without any contest.

i disagree with league being a quicker game as well. watch a player hit it up, get tackled, writhe around like he's being electrocuted, slowly get up, put the ball between his legs - then the game starts. count the time that all takes...every single tackle. there is an illusion of continual action in league. in reality that whole space of play takes at least 6 or 7 seconds if not more. the time wasted there is as much time, sometimes more, as a ruck...and a ruck is an actual contest. the 5 second rule has sped up the breakdown and its a huge improvement.
yes a league scrum doesn't take as long as a union scrum, but its completely pointless and a waste of time.....how is a complete waste of time any better?

 

[USARugger]

Just wanna throw it out there that American Football is an incredibly complex sport on a tactical level. It's like running set-piece plays over and over again for the entire game. From a strategic standpoint it's an insanely deep game.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

ya agree. my only problem with football is that it takes too long. the game is too commercialized. they need to just do an audible every play. tackle down, reset immediately and the QB calls the play - less the coach and offensive coordinator.

and while it will never happen, personally i'd prefer to see the same guys play offense and defense. linemen would become fitter and the game would be faster.

 

[Rob42]

I think a marketing campaign focussed on the differences between league and union would be a complete waste of time. Who would care? Engaged league fans don't care about the alleged lack of contests in their game - they care about their team smashing the blokes from down the road this weekend - they love their team, they love the game. Casual sports fans just don't care about the differences - not many people choose the game or team they will follow based on good, rational, scientific reasons.

People are attracted by a sport because they love to feel part of something, or be part of a spectacle. Example: I've never followed a soccer team, never been to an A-League game, though I don't mind the game in general. But I'm very keen to get along to see a Western Sydney Wanderers game - why? Because by all accounts the atmosphere at their games is terrific, they're mining a rich seam of enthusiastic fans who've been itching for a local team to follow for years.

The best way to expand rugby I think is to energise the base, at club level and Super Rugby level. Having a strong local rugby community will attract far more casual fans, and turn them into engaged fans, than any advertising campaign. For teams like the Tahs, it's about more than just playing "entertaining rugby". Rugby followers want to feel proud to be associated with the Tahs, which is more than just winning - though of course that helps. Example 2: the Swans in Sydney have built over many years a very solid base of fans because people feel they are a great team to be associated with - great culture, enagaged with the community, hard workers, no off-field issues. Families with no pre-existing sporting team links in Sydney often, in my experience, end up following the Swans because they seem to have no down-side - they are high achievers, wholesome, good role-models. That's the model I think the Tahs, and other teams for that matter, should follow. Cheika seems to be on the right path this year, but it's going to take time to cleanse the years of frustration from lapsed Tahs fans.

 

[Bullrush]

ya agree. my only problem with football is that it takes too long. the game is too commercialized. they need to just do an audible every play. tackle down, reset immediately and the QB calls the play - less the coach and offensive coordinator.

and while it will never happen, personally i'd prefer to see the same guys play offense and defense. linemen would become fitter and the game would be faster.

They are such different positions with specialised skill-sets. Some players can do both, especially at the lower levels but in the NFL it would lower the overall standard of the game.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

the specialisation of the positions is a function of them splitting the teams up. because they have gone the offense and defense roles, that has allowed people to focus on and specialize in a particular position. so yes, i agree, but it's a manufactured specialization. take it out and to an extent the quality would drop, but at the same time the game would move quicker.

 

[something]

i would love to see Inglis at 13... he is a wrecking ball that man.

Anywho, how do you think the union fellas would do in NFL USARugger? I sometimes watch touch downs and think somebody with a good step and wicked acceleration (like cooper or JOC (James O'Connor)) would do alright.. but i dont really know. would any be able to make the switch effectively?

 

[TOCC]

i would love to see Inglis at 13. he is a wrecking ball that man.

Anywho, how do you think the union fellas would do in NFL USARugger? I sometimes watch touch downs and think somebody with a good step and wicked acceleration (like cooper or JOC (James O'Connor)) would do alright.. but i dont really know. would any be able to make the switch effectively?

Think more along the lines of Digby and Savea... Maybe some of the athletic back rowers as well..

 

[Braveheart81]

i would love to see Inglis at 13. he is a wrecking ball that man.

Anywho, how do you think the union fellas would do in NFL USARugger? I sometimes watch touch downs and think somebody with a good step and wicked acceleration (like cooper or JOC (James O'Connor)) would do alright.. but i dont really know. would any be able to make the switch effectively?

James O'Connor could really only play running back. He'd probably go alright if he can stand up to the pounding.

I don't think Quade Cooper is fast enough or robust enough. He'd need to play running back too.

 

[Braveheart81]

Think more along the lines of Digby and Savea. Maybe some of the athletic back rowers as well..

Digby would also be a running back style player in all likelihood.

Savea could play wide receiver. The others aren't tall enough.

 

[Phil]

I think a marketing campaign focussed on the differences between league and union would be a complete waste of time. Who would care? Engaged league fans don't care about the alleged lack of contests in their game - they care about their team smashing the blokes from down the road this weekend - they love their team, they love the game. Casual sports fans just don't care about the differences - not many people choose the game or team they will follow based on good, rational, scientific reasons.

People are attracted by a sport because they love to feel part of something, or be part of a spectacle. Example: I've never followed a soccer team, never been to an A-League game, though I don't mind the game in general. But I'm very keen to get along to see a Western Sydney Wanderers game - why? Because by all accounts the atmosphere at their games is terrific, they're mining a rich seam of enthusiastic fans who've been itching for a local team to follow for years.

The best way to expand rugby I think is to energise the base, at club level and Super Rugby level. Having a strong local rugby community will attract far more casual fans, and turn them into engaged fans, than any advertising campaign. For teams like the Tahs, it's about more than just playing "entertaining rugby". Rugby followers want to feel proud to be associated with the Tahs, which is more than just winning - though of course that helps. Example 2: the Swans in Sydney have built over many years a very solid base of fans because people feel they are a great team to be associated with - great culture, enagaged with the community, hard workers, no off-field issues. Families with no pre-existing sporting team links in Sydney often, in my experience, end up following the Swans because they seem to have no down-side - they are high achievers, wholesome, good role-models. That's the model I think the Tahs, and other teams for that matter, should follow. Cheika seems to be on the right path this year, but it's going to take time to cleanse the years of frustration from lapsed Tahs fans.

Agree with you completely about trying to sway die-hard league fans to union.Just a waste of time.Your example of the Swans is spot on for how a team like the Tahs should use as a model for how a club should be run from the administration down and especially the coaching.
I remember the early days of the Swans when they relied on all the hype(Capper etc),but it wasn't until the coaches like Eade,Roos and now Longmire took over,then the whole culture changed.

 

[Phil]

I've always preferred union to league as it offers a lot more variety. But I'm not going to start bagging league. I watch a lot of league. It's a good product, one that is easy to understand and generally skillful. Personally I'm sort of turned off by people on this board talking about how shit league is. Given that my closest friends are, predominantly league fans, I've had to cop my fair share of abuse over the years about how shit rugby is and how league is a much better product. Some of those friends have changed their choon over the years, as rugby is a game which requires a built up knowledge to enjoy. Other friends remain staunchly ignorant. I'm surprised that those friends cant see the qualities of rugby that make it such a great game. But at the end of the day I'm a sports fans. I'm equally surprised that people on this board cant see the qualities of league that make it so enjoyable. There were some great games of league on the weekend (Raiders/Roosters + Rabbits/Warriors).

At the end of the day, to each his own. I'm happy that I can sit and enjoy a game of league or a game of union, athlough I have a true passion for the latter. I'll even sit and watch an AFL game now and then, although my passion is limited as I don't know any of the players or teams so its hard to watch it in context. I feel a bit sorry for sports fans who's enjoyment of footy is limited to one code. Variety is the spice of life.

If someone wants me to explain why I prefer union over league, well I could write an essay on the subject. But it's more about what I love about union than what I hate about league.

On a side note I think both games have some down-sides which I’d like to see addressed.
For league:-

• The biggest problem with league is the obsessive use of the video ref. They inspect every try, even the most straight forward, ad nausea. It totally kills the momentum of the game. Rugby takes a sensible approach to video ref although I’ve noticed it’s been used more frequently this year. I’d like to see them keep an eye on this to make sure rugby does not go the way of league.
• The scrums are a joke. Allow a bit of pushing I say. Perhaps the silliest rule I’ve ever seen is when a team wants to stop the clock they have to pack down a scrum, and remain packed, meanwhile the other team can just take their time and don’t need to pack down until their good and ready. Stupid. Change it.
• Does league actually need two refs”. No. it’s over kill.

Rugby

• Penalties at scrum time are a major problem. It is often very hard for referees to decipher which team is to blame for a scrum collapse etc. scrum tactics are becoming more cunning and referees are deciding games. I like Kaffer’s suggestion that teams cant take a shot at goal off a scrum penalty. Either tap and go or kick for touch.
• I’d like to see the clock stop when the ball is either in touch or during scrum time (sorta like NFL). This would add probably another 10minutes of rugby to every game. It is horrible sometimes when you sit and watch one scrum eat up 5 minutes of the game.

Like you,I just don't understand why the supporters of any code of football delight in knocking the others.I was brought up on league and union and still love both games.Having moved to Melbourne for a few years,I even got to like AFL,although I believe it is a game much more suited to live viewing than on TV.
My main criticism of league now, is that it has become a bit too one dimensional and I agree with you on the extreme use of the video ref.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Swans have implemented a "no dickhead" policy.

This has brought them many many fans; far more than they may have lost by cutting dickheads loose from their roster, or by not recruiting dickheads in the first place.

There could be something in that.

 

[Muttonbird]

I can understand the fear of Rugby League in Australia as it is a bogan sport over there where as Rugby is an elite sport. Most rugby players in Australia are decent blokes with the odd Kurtley Beale and Quade Cooper thrown in to bring the tone down. In NZ both codes are populated by individuals from the same backgrounds.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Like you,I just don't understand why the supporters of any code of football delight in knocking the others.I was brought up on league and union and still love both games.Having moved to Melbourne for a few years,I even got to like AFL,although I believe it is a game much more suited to live viewing than on TV.
My main criticism of league now, is that it has become a bit too one dimensional and I agree with you on the extreme use of the video ref.

My issues with League developed over time. As Rugby took a more and more prominence in my preferences I began to see a great deal of League games as a bit robotic and artificial. Constantly changing and manipulating the rules to chase TV dollars while effectively removing itself from the game it effectively was. My father who grew up on League turned completely off the game as in he's own words "that's not the game I played growing up".

Also, spending six years at a school where my preference in Rugby code was ridiculed didn't help. You know how annoying it is to be told that you are a no talent hack by those you beat into the 'A' grade age group in League for 4 of those 6 years.

 

[boyo]

Have our attention spans really gone out the window that we need have something bright and colourful happening every second? Are we really unable to pass 1-2 minutes talking to the person next to us (where at the game I'm sure it'd be a friend/family member) or at home grabbing a drink/going to the toilet.
.

It would appear so, according to the playing of music at each and every stoppage in play.