peanuts Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Not a joke but an hilarious article I found on the net when I was looking up the difference between between Rugby League and Rugby Union; The only attribution I could find was plover.net/~bonds/rugby.html? rugby league vs. rugby unionI'm embarrassed, as any thinking person should be, to admit that I've watched quite a bit of televised sport lately. But for one reason or another, I've seen several games of rugby - both League and Union - over the past few weeks. And I feel myself drawn to comment on a certain sporting injustice. First, a note for baffled Americans. Rugby is a kind of 'British Empire' version of American Football, in which two opposing teams of 250-pound hulks attempt to force an oval ball over the opponent's line - a procedure known as a 'try'. (There's more to it than that, but let's leave it there for the moment.) In 1895, rugby split into two different camps. Rugby League became a professional game with a simplified set of rules; today it is chiefly only played in Australia and northern England. Rugby Union stayed amateur and kept the original rules; today it claims to be one of the world's most widely played games, played all over the British Isles, France, Italy, South Africa, Argentina and throughout Oceania. Rubgy Union gets massive TV and media coverage; Rugby League is only covered when there's nothing else happening, and sometimes not even then. And this is the injustice I was talking about, because Rugby League is the better game in every way. It's faster, more open, more exciting. In League, the ball is always in motion; in Union, the ball always seems to be stuck under a pile of bodies. In League, most of the points come from tries; in Union, most of the points come from penalties. League games are all-action, with barely enough time to squeeze in TV replays; Union games involve lots of standing around in bewilderment as the play gets halted for constant rule infringements. The reason for the constant rule infringements is that Union has far too many rules. Nobody knows them all: not the players, not the commentators, and certainly not the tossers in burberry who shout 'heave' on the sidelines. Perhaps fittingly for a game played by people who grow up to be lawyers, games often hinge on the interpretation of obscure rules and precedents that are applied almost at random. It's like an ultra-violent version of Mornington Crescent. I'm tempted to say that the more rules there are in a game, the less satisfactory it is. Chess, for example, is a very simple game, yet it is deep and rich enough to have inspired a mass of study and literature. Go is simpler and richer again. In fact, simplicity has been the key to most of the games that have inspired the popular imagination - from football to basketball, from Scrabble to Monopoly. Apart from Rugby Union, I can't think of another popular game with such a messy, patched-up ruleset. Why has this abomination survived for so long? And why has it flourished when there is a much simpler and more satisfactory alternative in Rugby League? The answer is obvious. Rugby Union was the sport of choice in the schools that TV executives went to. Rugby Union nets the TV station a nice cachet of ABC1 viewers. Rugby Union, more than any other sport, is the preserve of the middle classes. The truth is that despite the media hype and its status as a 'world sport', Rugby Union isn't all that popular. Nobody goes to see club matches. Internationals do get big crowds, but these are drawn from a thin social layer. And these are just the spectators: even fewer people actually play the game. In South Africa, despite lip-service to the contrary, it's a pastime exclusively for ######. In Britain and Ireland, despite all the media coverage, it's only played in a handful of schools - the fee-paying ones. Why hasn't Rugby Union spread to working-class schools? One reason is that the boys of Old Wesley and Old Belvedere wouldn't fancy lining up against a Ballyfermot XV. Another reason, quite simply, is that it's crap. Like many of the entertainments to come out of British public schools, Rubgy Union is a mix of ###### and coming-of-age ceremony. For eighty minutes, a group of public school boys undergo a series of punishing ordeals, which must be endured rather than enjoyed. To succeed, they must show courage, commitment, self-sacrifice, teamwork, individual responsibility and a number of other things they'll talk about when they become management consultants. Only when the eighty minutes are over can they call themselves men. This is the 'amateurism' to which the rugby football unions were so dedicated. The game aspect of Rugby Union is always subordinated to this 'self-proving' aspect; even at international level, Rugby Union is less a game and more a televised Masonic ritual. The parallels with Freemasonry don't stop there, however. Once the players become too knackered to play anymore, young boys' pastime turns into old boys' network. As with a carefully contrived handshake, or the astute raising of a trouser leg, a past in Rugby Union can get you places. Many, perhaps even most, of Ireland's present knights of industry - Sir Tony O'Reilly the most prominent example - were former rugby players. It's a truism, almost a banality, to say that Rugby Union looks after its own. Rugby League, by contrast, is played by coal-miners' sons from Wigan. Did it ever stand a chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Prefer union myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oafc88 Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 I like both but if i had to make a choice then League. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 I actually quite like it when England lose at union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Played both though considerably more league. I played scrum half at both codes. While being immensely involved at league, whilst it being a pivotable position in union I was often bored to tears. My only job in union was to pass the ball from ruck/scrum/lineout, nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Played hooker in league, I've watched both live at the very highest level at national and club and enjoyed both codes. The European game in Union gives it the edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_ragg1984 Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 What I don't get about Union is that one team will get the ball and kick it 60 yards down the pitch. The other team will then kick it 60 yards back. Then it gets kicked 60 yards back the other way, and then they will leather it out of play. And then the crowd all cheer. Whats all that about?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 What I don't get about Union is that one team will get the ball and kick it 60 yards down the pitch. The other team will then kick it 60 yards back. Then it gets kicked 60 yards back the other way, and then they will leather it out of play. And then the crowd all cheer. Whats all that about?! It's a territorial game, they kick it away (punt) when they're close to the goal line, as you wouldn't want to run it away... The player tries to kick the ball as far as possible towards the opponents goal and they usually aim for one of the touch lines. If the ball crosses the touch line before being touched by anyone a lineout is awarded to the opposing team. If the ball is put inside the players 22 metre line by a member of the opposition they can kick the ball out on the full and gain ground. Otherwise ground is only gained if the ball bounces in the field of play before crossing the touch line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oafc88 Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 I would agree with the top post that it is a little more confusing watching Union, not that it stops me. I just still can't figure out the rucking/mauling aspect, who has possession in it, why they sometimes chuck loads of blokes into it and don't get the ball and other times hardly anyone goes in and they come up with possession. Also at the scrum with the binding of the arms etc it just seems open to too much interpetation as not even the analysts on tv can seem to know what is happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Neither... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Rugby League all day long. Both to play and to watch. The ball spends too much time in the air in Union. The Rucks and Mauls bore me and line-outs are pretty pointless as a way to restart a game. When I played at Waterhead as a kid I got invited to go and train with Sale RU I remember just being confused by all the rules. Played full back and once got a bollocking for catching the ball and running it back. Even though I scored I got told I should be kicking it for position. Never went back to Union after that. Won a few 7s tournaments at School but they are more like a game of league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Union to play, although that could be because I played Back-row or as a mobile Hooker in Union and Winger/full-back in League. As to watching, it varies on the quality of the game. A poor game of Union v a poor game of league, then the league. A good game of union v a good game of league; then the union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 The original article is a long way out about nobody playing union, over 100,000 every week do. I appreciate the superior skills in League but union (so it seems to me) has more strategy and variation which makes it a better watch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 The original article is a long way out about nobody playing union, over 100,000 every week do. I appreciate the superior skills in League but union (so it seems to me) has more strategy and variation which makes it a better watch Yes I thought that Union was played in most Southern Schools like League is up North. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Yes I thought that Union was played in most Southern Schools like League is up North.[/quotep]Part of the reason it has no fans is that a lot of people are playing instead of watching, and often well into their 30s and 40s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.