Rugby League really gives me the shits

[terry j]

has there been vitriolic hatred in this thread tho?? I have seen calm, considered criticism yes, but not sure about vitriolic hatred.

The way I kinda look at this thread is more an opportunity to 'get it off the chest' due, simply, to very little available alternative. So not much of a surprise to see these sentiments on a rugby forum. In many ways it is a backlash against what could be argued is a constant all powerful 'hatred' of union by most available outlets. Hatred might be a bit strong there, but I doubt you could make a cogent argument that union has anywhere the level of coverage it deserves. So from that angle the outlet here is understandable.

For example, in all my years of watching rugby I have yet to hear any sort of criticism from the commentators about league, indeed it often borders on outright appreciation, yet (especially when I consider how much league I watch) when watching a league game........

Much of this is of intense intellectual curiosity to me, bums on seats was one point raised that shows the elbow patch crowd have not got it right, yet when viewed against not only the massive exposure of league and the 'criminal' ignoring of union, we have the league guys bagging union at any available opportunity. Couple that then with the league fans getting nothing positive about union in the media, no wonder that we have the relative crowd levels.

Another point I wonder about, let's examine a possible casual exposure of the average league fan (bearing in mind the backdrop already outlined) to a game of union, I'd hazard it is likely to be a test match. But let's face it, a test match is a very different kettle of fish to the average Super Rugby game, or club game. For the very reasons that we would be engrossed (tight, hard fought, everything at stake)-due to it being an average test match-the uninformed league would walk away with his prejudices confirmed (but I'd also wager he did not try particularly hard to understand the different approach, more likely intending to confirm his existing ideas).

Unbeknownst to him tho, it could be that it more exposes the weakness of HIS code (to my way of thinking)..namely that as league is basically only played one way it would not even cross his mind that union can throw up vastly different games in style. How many tries just this last weekend were end to end stuff lasting minutes before finally a try was scored? All too often the 'quality' of a game is indicated by the (high) score. A very shallow view of sport methinks. Was it last year when we drew with the ABs there was an opinion piece in some newspaper...a union guy (jamie someone??) explained hoiw tight it was etc etc despite the low score, and of course a league guy basically saying how lame it was and low scoring blah blah. Anyway, what made me chuckle was that the next weekend was the RL GF, and IIRC it was rather low scoring hehe. Still, if we needed it, simply more evidence of a deep underlying bashing of union using whatever current available means to do so.

So no, he would only see 'test match' rugby, completely fail to grasp it anyway (and not willing to put the effort in) and not have any sort of reference in the media that would help him to (at least) view the game in and of itself. I mean to come to a decision on whether you like the game or not you at first have to be willing to watch it for itself. That is I think what would be the missing step.

So no, don't quite see any vitriolic hatred here, most points that have been raised seem to have been rational, thinking pints, have not seen blind unthinking lashing out at all.

 

[rugbyskier]

As someone who grew up following league then started following rugby closely in my early 30s and finally started playing in my early 40s, I've found that when I do watch a league match that the flow of the game can be quite predictable.

For example, the ball is kicked down field and the defending fullback gathers it around 10m from the goal line: I would say that 99% of the time in league the fullback will run straight and take a tackle after 20-30m (or maybe pass to another back who takes a tackle), whereas in rugby the fullback has a number of options that will be dependent on whether he has support of other backs and what the other team's players have done. If under pressure he may kick or run the ball out, if he has space he may pass or run the ball with players in support, or he may run to the 22 and kick.

I find league scrums these days to be a total farce, I can recall that in the 70s they were competitive. I think that the de-powering of the scrum has been a factor in the homogeneity of body shapes for league players.

 

[wamberal]

Loig scrums were even worse when they were serious. For starters, the hookers never bound properly. For seconds, the threat of violence was omnipresent.


The old play-the-ball was also much more interesting than the current turf hump. It was not at all unusual for there to be a turnover (in fact, the original play-the-ball was meant to be a "two man scrum", where possession was genuinely contested).


Unlimited tackles. Two point field goals (who can ever forget Eric Simms kicking so many that the rule had to be changed, down to 1 point?) No replacements.


Ron Coote corner-posting in defence. Aaaaah, those were the days.

 

[terry j]

thanks wamberal, that's the sort of thing (well some of them) I was alluding to earlier when I expressed an 'intellectual interest'. For example, the play the ball originally meant to be a two man scrum, first I've heard of it. Interesting.

Was aware of the unlimited play the balls in the past, think that had a lot to do with st G winning ten premierships in a row, BIG pack and simply rumble it up the field indefinitely until they fall over the line.

It's the 'history' of it all that I think fascinates me. AND, the way I see it with my current limited knowledge is that all the rule changes either came from trying to distance themselves from union, or consequences of that. And ironically, it is those changes that have reduced it to the no contest one dimensional game it is now.

When did they ditch the lineout for example? After all, they kept the scrum (reduced by rule changes to the farce it is now) and for a long while the unlimited tackles. (while I think of it, always thought it was Bob Fulton's field goals which led to the point change)

From the little I know, and this makes me smile when I hear the current bleating about rugby stealing league players.,have they no sense of history?, league would not have made it in aus if not for dally m. It makes me wonder WHO was behind that push and supplied the money. Not that I know, but it may have been media interests?? if so, that of course would have been the beginning in the media for bigging up league at the expense of union.

I guess I can understand the rule changes, after all if no changes then you may as well play rugby, but equally it is those very changes that gutted the game. The most bizarre example I can think of that is when if you get tackled five times then you lamely hand the ball over....and then the zeroth tackle on top of that, just gets more and more, well, bizarre.

 

[wamberal]

I am pretty sure, not positive, that the original set of loig rules, precluded lineouts. Although interestingly enough, there was some consideration of introducing lineouts in the sixties.

I have to disagree with you, obviously a convert like Dally M was enormously important, but IMHO significant numbers of Australians prefer running rugby, which rugby unfortunately has not been all that good at. (Are you aware, for example, that the international rules for rugby allowed kicking out on the full from anywhere on the field, up until the sixties - we were allowed to play our domestic competitions under the "Australian dispensation" - which resembles the current rule allowing kicking out on the full from the 22?) No doubt there were sporting entrepreneurs in those days who saw that a game based on running the ball would be more popular than our game. And they were right, of course.

Australians preferred league over rugby to such an extent that rugby was on the verge of dying out - or being reduced to a local curiosity - until some bright spark had the idea of inviting the Fijian national team to tour here during the fifties. They were an absolutely sensational success (mostly because the RAN WITH THE BLOODY BALL) and the influx of pounds and shillings and pence into our national coffers saved the game.


Another interesting sidelight on the issue of scrums is that once upon a time rugby hookers were poached to play loig. Ken Kearney is the most outstanding example, a Wallaby hooker who played hooker, and captained, a championship winning St George side. And coached them too, IIRC.

Of course loig was helped enormously by the amateur rule in rugby. A rugby player who played one minute of loig, whether or not he was paid for it, was deemed to be a professional, and banned for life from playing rugby. That was a really good idea, chaps.

My own club, Eastwood, would not even allow Michael Cleary, who was the local member of State Parliament to join the bloody club, even though he was a Wallaby.

 

[Mullos]

Didn't know about the reintroduction of lineouts chat Wambers. Any contest for possession would improve the Mugoloid game.

 

[Mullos]

Riddler good thread. I would like to go further and suggest that the the IRB claim exclusive rights to the name Rugby for sport similar to what the Frogs did with Champagne and Greeks with Feta Cheese and not just because this code with its incorrigible, tawdry culture sullies Rugby's good name at will. RL also has a tendency to ride Rugby's coattails and with national Olympic Committes around the world investing in rugby right now it is best to stop this by getting rid of the ambiguity of having two sports called Rugby.

Anyone please know how i could reclaim this Burke's Boot login as i no longer have the iinet email account linked to it to get the password?

 

[Sully]

Anyone please know how i could reclaim this Burke's Boot login as i no longer have the iinet email account linked to it to get the password?

Email matt@greenandgoldrugby.com and/or moses@greenandgoldrugby.com they'll sort it out.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[Lindommer]

.....have they no sense of history?, league would not have made it in Aus if not for Dally M. It makes me wonder WHO was behind that push and supplied the money. Not that I know, but it may have been media interests?

Two of the early instigators for the introduction of the professional game in 1905 were James Joynton Smith and Victor Trumper, the cricketer. Joynton Smith founded Smith's Weekly with Frank Packer's father and made a fortune out of it. JS was Lord Mayor of Sydney in 1917, you can see his name inscribed up on the George Street side of the Queen Victoria Building.

Sean Fagan would have a more comprehensive (and better) piece on the advent of league in Australia somewhere on his website.

 

[Rassie]

Talking about that. All Golds touring and trying to keep union amateur and trying to keep the Moari and Pacific Islanders in union the New Zealand Moari's was created. Now one got to ask in today's world of political correctness, diversity as well as race being a sensitive issue, do New Zealand still really have the need for a Moari team considering rugby is now professional and the All Blacks can start to play teams like Samoa, Fiji and Tonga more often themselves

 

[Sluggy]

Talking about that. All Golds touring and trying to keep union amateur and trying to keep the Moari and Pacific Islanders in union the New Zealand Moari's was created. Now one got to ask in today's world of political correctness, diversity as well as race being a sensitive issue, do New Zealand still really have the need for a Moari team considering rugby is now professional and the All Blacks can start to play teams like Samoa, Fiji and Tonga more often themselves

The Maori these days are like an NZ B team. And a very difficult opponent for all but about the top 6 teams in the world; as well the calender for the AIGBs is pretty full with 3 June, 6 RC and 4 EOYT tests, so the second tier nations like Italy, Ireland and Scotland, and the PIs can at least play the Maori.

 

[USARugger]

It's a heritage thing anyway, there's absolutely nothing politically incorrect about it. Especially when you look at the composition of the NZ Maori side nowadays it's about a shared culture and heritage, not about skin color.

And like Sluggy mentioned it doesn't make sense for the ABs to play nations like Fiji or Tonga outside of the RWC. They would be losing out on revenue and a competitive test.

 

[Rassie]

It's a heritage thing anyway, there's absolutely nothing politically incorrect about it. Especially when you look at the composition of the NZ Maori side nowadays it's about a shared culture and heritage, not about skin color.

And like Sluggy mentioned it doesn't make sense for the ABs to play nations like Fiji or Tonga outside of the RWC. They would be losing out on revenue and a competitive test.

What is the criteria when they select players? Do you remember Christian Culllen and Braid in 2004 and the issues surrounding their selection? Can you imagine the outcry if Australia had a separate Aboriginal team or South Africa a separate black team like the New Zealand Maori. In NZ it might look differently but tose around the world who do not understand will look at it differently. Just like they did at SA during early 1900 to 1992.

NZ Maori rugby league team were created to get the Islanders to play rugby league. They attracted something like 40 000 crowds touring Australia. NZRU did the same and created the NZ Maori team. That is a thing they established very early and that is make sure that you have role models and they will try to emulate them. We seen it later with guys like Michael Jones and Lomu attracting kids from the islands to NZ wanting to become a AB.

One thing I find really interesting. That they did not select Maori players in 1920's because South Africa told them they won't be allowed to enter the country. Which is strange because the NP took over only 27 years later and South Africa was still in control of the British as Smits is the father of the RAF. And according to most reports (which is false btw) Apartheid started around 1949.

 

[USARugger]

The requirement for selection today is a DNA test or historical affirmation of their whakapapa, I believe. I actually spoke too early in my first post, this is a shift away from the former policy of only accepting players which were visibly Maori and also who were entrenched in Maori culture. The new standard of selection heavily depoliticizes the Maori ABs because it's a purely heritage-based selection process without any of the cultural hang-ons attached to it. That is to say it shifts the focus of the team away from White-exclusion to honoring their Maori heritage (an extension of the ancestor-worship so prevalent in Maori culture).

I was only 13 in 2004 and couldn't have told you the difference between a rugby ball and my own asshole at the time. So no, I didn't know about the Cullen incident. Reading up on it the only real controversy I'm seeing is that his Maori heritage was questionable and he was a bit of a dick about things. This appears to be the actual moment in time though when this shift in the focus of the Maori AB squad happened. As opposed to what it used to stand for the Maori ABs became more of an alternate feeder for the ABs than anything else.

Australia and South Africa would never do something like that because there is no historical-cultural tie between the game and those ethnic groups. Maori in New Zealand have a history documented dating back to the 1870s of playing Rugby Union. The contemporary and historical race relations in NZ as compared to Oz and SA are apples and oranges. Yes terrible shit happened during the colonial period (as it did nearly everywhere else on Earth) and yes the Maori and NZEs clashed multiple times with deaths on both sides. But, this never happened and apartheid wasn't upheld in NZ into the 1990s. The contemporary racial issues in SA and Australia are also much, much worse.

It's also an enormous stretch to call the Maori ABs racist based on the fact that they will only play athletes with Maori heritage as it in no way hinders non-Maori players from getting to the ABs. NZ-A and the Junior All Blacks exist for that.

 

[wamberal]

Didn't know about the reintroduction of lineouts chat Wambers. Any contest for possession would improve the Mugoloid game.

I don't think it was a serious option. I remember it well, because there was some speculation that Denis Cleary (an old adversary of mine in club rugby, and Michael's brother of course) had been approached by South Sydney to join them, if the lineout rule was introduced in loig. Paper talk, probably.

 

[Rassie]

The requirement for selection today is a DNA test or historical affirmation of their whakapapa, I believe. I actually spoke too early in my first post, this is a shift away from the former policy of only accepting players which were visibly Maori and also who were entrenched in Maori culture. The new standard of selection heavily depoliticizes the Maori ABs because it's a purely heritage-based selection process without any of the cultural hang-ons attached to it. That is to say it shifts the focus of the team away from White-exclusion to honoring their Maori heritage (an extension of the ancestor-worship so prevalent in Maori culture).

I was only 13 in 2004 and couldn't have told you the difference between a rugby ball and my own asshole at the time. So no, I didn't know about the Cullen incident. Reading up on it the only real controversy I'm seeing is that his Maori heritage was questionable and he was a bit of a dick about things. This appears to be the actual moment in time though when this shift in the focus of the Maori AB squad happened. As opposed to what it used to stand for the Maori ABs became more of an alternate feeder for the ABs than anything else.

Australia and South Africa would never do something like that because there is no historical-cultural tie between the game and those ethnic groups. Maori in New Zealand have a history documented dating back to the 1870s of playing Rugby Union. The contemporary and historical race relations in NZ as compared to Oz and SA are apples and oranges. Yes terrible shit happened during the colonial period (as it did nearly everywhere else on Earth) and yes the Maori and NZEs clashed multiple times with deaths on both sides. But, this never happened and apartheid wasn't upheld in NZ into the 1990s. The contemporary racial issues in SA and Australia are also much, much worse.

It's also an enormous stretch to call the Maori ABs racist based on the fact that they will only play athletes with Maori heritage as it in no way hinders non-Maori players from getting to the ABs. NZ-A and the Junior All Blacks exist for that.

See the problem was we had a policy implemented never to play teams that is selected on racial policy (ironically we do that with the quota system) thus the Maori tour that looked a good option to SA had run into these difficulties. NZ later canceled these tours to save money. But I think the real problem behind the scenes was the contracts the the money that could be made of it between NZ and SA. Because both countries know a Maori tour to SA and games in Soweto, Cape Town and PE would attract huge interest and that means money. In the 30's NZ notice record crowds came in when NZ played SA in NZ. It was the biggest crowd ever seen over there and there is where the rivalry and friendship so to speak were actually born. Like NZ SA just wanted to play rugby and left whatever it the hell alone. Its a shame that rivalry and that friendship died down and is a shadow of it former self but you imgine with the 86 Cavalier tour what it meant to some and they only cared about rugby.

As for the other question about SA having teams on racial lines. You said never. Quite right but in the past we had a black SA rugby team called the Kwagga's and a Colored SA team called the Protea's. They toured Europe and played against the AB in a tour matches in SA.

I am colored myself and it is really a shame how they blame the past of SA on a group of people who lost almost everything after a war, was treated like crap and had to politically struggle to take back a country with already racial segregation in place (as it was started by the British in the late 1800's due to the tribes murdering each other) then add when they manage to take control of it there was already a resistance and they were tied to communist parties from the east which was seen as the evli by the rest of the world due to the Cold War. Then add the riches of it was in foreign control and there was no border control. And till today they are still taking that blame. But as you can see most of them don't care. They will take the blame take everything just to play rugby. Cause it was not competing in the Olympics, nor playing England or Australia in rugby that hurt them it was not getting to play NZ that really did the damage. Any guys who play rugby while being bombed with flour really showed what it meant to them and they just want to play rugby.

Coming back to the Kwagga and Protea team. The problem SA had was in the 30's the Black Sport Unions and the Colored Sport Unions made rules that any club or person who played for a white club or against any white clubs and teams would be banned permanently from playing sport. That is real reason why a English cricketer could not play in SA and had nothing to do with race. He was banned by his own union.

People must also take in consideration rugby was brutal in the old days. That is why the Afrikaner loved it so much cause they grew up hard and tough. That is why SA teams also play physical game.

The Kiwi's were tough as well and you can see on they tour to SA rugby wasn't like it was today. It was brutal. We coloreds do not like the physical encounters we love to throw it around and you will even note today players of color playing for SA is mostly back line players.

Our biggest struggle was to fin int with SA style of play. The Springbok team were not selected on racial lines in the past. We had to adapt and our rugby boards really too direction in 1966. COuple of years later colored sides were playing white guys and colored where playing for white teams. This is the Proteas playing against the AB

As you can see still lacking tackle techniques. Sadly not many know of this game and know that 5 years alter the first player of color was selected for SA and went on tour to NZ in 81.

 

[p.Tah]

The RL World Cup has been in existence since 1954. The tournament has been held sporadically during that time. Up until 1995 only 4-5 teams competed. Since that time the tournament has expanded and 14 teams will compete in the 2013 tournament in the UK & Ireland. My concern with this expansion is that some teams are included for the sake of having a larger tournament with teams made up primarily of Australians. In Rugby and other sports there is a portion of players representing a country that qualify under a grandparent rule, but I feel it's a bit of a stretch when the majority of the team have a distant link to that country. Take Italy's RL team for example:

If anyone speaks Italian to the country's World Cup team later this year, expect all heads to turn to one man – captain Anthony Minichiello.
According to lock Joel Riethmuller, the Sydney Roosters veteran is taking lessons in the family tongue so he can fulfil official duties at the end-of-season tournament in England, Wales, Ireland and France.
North Queensland's Riethmuller said: “I don't speak Italian and not many of the boys do.
“Mini's learning it for the World Cup. He's taking lessons I'm told.
“My grandparents were born there and my mum's older brother was born there. There's a link there that I'm taking full advantage of.”
We texted Anthony and asked how the lessons were going. “Ha! I haven't had any sessions yet.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...annah-story-20130501-2isqh.html#ixzz2S2i6Cd4x

 

[Rassie]

Its funny that rugby league never took off in South Africa especially there is a lot of fighting in it. But I guess no forwards bashing each other up would be the downer in this country.

 

[Torn Hammy]

I see SBW as a bellwether of the future fortunes of the two competing codes.

The announcement of million dollar contracts for Benji and Inglis is bad news for rugby union. Five years ago oz union could pick the eyes out of league talent with their larger player payments, but this situation will reverse due to league's huge tv rights war chest and a rapidly increasing salary cap.

The fact that SBW, the best rugby IC in the world, could turn around the Rooster's fortunes so emphatically, will see the other 15 league clubs casting their eyes over the cream of rugby talent.

With footballers becoming more and more professional, it will be interesting to see where SBW, and also Foleau end up in the near future.

 

[Dan54]

Rassie, I have seen Aboriginal league, cricket and AFL teams, I don't think there ever been controversy over that. I like the way these days all maori players are named with their Iwi to show where the connection is, would love to see same in Aus,if there enough indigenous players around, remembering of course as in NZ now it professional it is a struggle to fit games in.