"American Rugby"?

[Rampart66]

Answer this for me. It's it's not just me; it seems that plenty of people like to watch League over Union and I can understand that. But what I can't fathom for the life of me is why Union is the dominant code in all countries (and please correct me if I'm wrong about this) except Australia.

Since the rugby schism was based on paying players to play (and it was League that became a "professional" sport first), you would think that history would have league as the dominant code.

So what gives? I really, really tried to watch the Rugby World Cup, but it lacked the speed of the League game.

When I talk to people about Rugby League, I'll compare it to the Cal-Stanford play in 1982 (one of the most famous plays in college football)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfebpLfAt8g

Then I tell them "Imagine that every play is like that; that's Rugby League"

Or at least this is how I, as an American view the game seeing it for the first time.

 

[Evil Homer]

Answer this for me. It's it's not just me; it seems that plenty of people like to watch League over Union and I can understand that. But what I can't fathom for the life of me is why Union is the dominant code in all countries (and please correct me if I'm wrong about this) except Australia.

Since the rugby schism was based on paying players to play (and it was League that became a "professional" sport first), you would think that history would have league as the dominant code.

So what gives? I really, really tried to watch the Rugby World Cup, but it lacked the speed of the League game.

Historically, there was always a class divide in England. The South was generally home of the Lords and Ladies, posh manor houses and the stereotypical upper-class English snobs, while the North was generally working-class. To an extent it's still that way today. Naturally all the money and power was in the South. In the 1890s, the Rugby Union, which was run by the rich, decided that they wanted rugby to be a sport for the country's 'elite', and so outlawed the payment of players. This meant that the majority of Northern teams wouldn't have been able to continue playing, since their players were too poor to give up work. Hence, the Northern teams split away and formed their own 'rugby league'. A few years later, they changed the rules to make the game more exciting and attractive to players in the face of opposition and threats from the Rugby Union. Those rules have evolved over time to form the basis of RL today; union is still playing pretty much with the same rules from the 1890's, hence the clear difference in quality between the two sports. Unfortunately, since the RL clubs were in general very poor, they didn't really have the resources to spread the game - this is the reason for the very regional nature of RL in the UK. I'm not sure how it got to Australia and New Zealand in 1907, but other than that it pretty much took until the 1990's for any new nations to take up the sport (France was another RL nation in the early days, but what happened there is a seperate issue). Meanwhile, the rich Rugby Union were able to use their wealth to expand and promote their game, and also to pretty much try and destroy RL at any chance they got - they needed to, they knew that if RL became mainstream then RU would have quickly become irrelevant and died out.

In terms of popularity, RL is big in Australia because that's pretty much the only place where the sport was able to develop unhindered. RL is also roughly the same size as union in England - the reason union appears to be bigger is because, as mentioned above, league is played by the working class in the North and union is played by the private schoolboys in the South - guess who controls the media in the UK? I'd actually say at a domestic level, RL is quite a bit stronger than RU in England - crowds are equivalent at matches and there's no comparison in terms of TV ratings, RL is far better. It's only really for international matches that Union gains more popularity, again because of the influence of the media in the South.

There's a long, bitter history between the two codes, it's pretty interesting to look into and honestly it doesn't really paint a good picture for RU. Sadly most of this information isn't really common knowledge, I guess that's just a legacy of the control and influence that the rich have had on the media over the years.

 

[billy2]

Union is the sport of the English private school system.

It started at the Rugby School - reportedly by an American named William Webb-Ellis picking up the ball and running with it during a game of soccer.

The reason Union spread around the world is because the English private education system took in the children of the wealthy from around the world, and also people educated in that system became educators at schools and universities around the world.

 

[NRL-TGG]

A little off the line of conversation, but in this thread and in other threads on here it has been stated that NFL field can not be used to play Rugby League on because NFL field are too narrow. But is this true? I have been watching some NFL games of late and there is a lot of room on the sidelines where the defense, special teams etc stand. It looks like, if you take those people away that there would be enough room for a wider field.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

I could live with this - CANMOURLY. Before any of you laugh, know this. There is historical significance to this made up word. Can anyone tell me what it is?

CAN (Adrian) MORLeY (a.k.a. the head hunter) keep his tackles below the neck?

BTW, answer is no, and there's no U in Morley

 

[Big Picture]

A little off the line of conversation, but in this thread and in other threads on here it has been stated that NFL field can not be used to play Rugby League on because NFL field are too narrow. But is this true? I have been watching some NFL games of late and there is a lot of room on the sidelines where the defense, special teams etc stand. It looks like, if you take those people away that there would be enough room for a wider field.

It depends on the shape of stadium. Some taper in too much at the corners to fit a full-size RL field and goal areas, others don't. The ones that don't would fit a full-length field and goal areas, though you might have to make do with a width somewhere between 60 and 65 meters.

 

[YellowJacket]

My friends know the game as rugby league or league football. The term American rugby could work if it remains exclusively in this country. However, a name won't really affect people's minds in my opinion because the average joe will still realize that it's rugby. I think USA rugby has to help either by marketing rugby league or by marketing themselves as rugby union. Marketing and winning. If the Tomahawks achieve some consistent success then the media and the general public will be sure to recognize the difference.

 

[NRL-TGG]

Rugby Union is going to do no favour to Rugby League anywhere in the world and there is a very good reason for that.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Maybe you should read the thread..

I would have, but when the opening post is very ill-thought, and the thread has pages in the double digits, I tend to just read the first and last page!

I still think "Leagueball" or "Leagball" could work - a portmanteau of "League" and "Football".
It's simple, unique, easily recognisable to our code, and can be extended to other parts of the game, eg "Leaguies" are spectators (League "speccies") and "Leaguers" are players. The ball is obviously a Leagueball.

 

[Poul]

I have been as big an opponent of "American Rugby" as anyone on this site, but until somebody comes up with something better than lateral football and the like I will continue to call it rugby league. But, to show that I am not opposed to a change I will get things going. I have borrowed from the soccer and association connection somewhat. I could live with this - CANMOURLY. Before any of you laugh, know this. There is historical significance to this made up word. Can anyone tell me what it is?

You got me :?
Maybe Canadian and American National Major Organisation of United Rugby League Y???????

Please put us all out of our misery #-o

 

[PacificCoastRL]

Ha, Ha. I had forgotten about this. It is a jumble of the first three letters of Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire. The birth place of rugby league.

 

[deluded pom?]

Ha, Ha. I had forgotten about this. It is a jumble of the first three letters of Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire. The birth place of rugby league.

Nearly right. There weren't any Cumbrian teams at the formation of the NU in 1895. You now have to form an anagram of LanYor. NY Oral?

 

[Poul]

Historically, there was always a class divide in England. The South was generally home of the Lords and Ladies, posh manor houses and the stereotypical upper-class English snobs, while the North was generally working-class. To an extent it's still that way today. Naturally all the money and power was in the South. In the 1890s, the Rugby Union, which was run by the rich, decided that they wanted rugby to be a sport for the country's 'elite', and so outlawed the payment of players. This meant that the majority of Northern teams wouldn't have been able to continue playing, since their players were too poor to give up work. Hence, the Northern teams split away and formed their own 'rugby league'. A few years later, they changed the rules to make the game more exciting and attractive to players in the face of opposition and threats from the Rugby Union. Those rules have evolved over time to form the basis of RL today; union is still playing pretty much with the same rules from the 1890's, hence the clear difference in quality between the two sports. Unfortunately, since the RL clubs were in general very poor, they didn't really have the resources to spread the game - this is the reason for the very regional nature of RL in the UK. I'm not sure how it got to Australia and New Zealand in 1907, but other than that it pretty much took until the 1990's for any new nations to take up the sport (France was another RL nation in the early days, but what happened there is a seperate issue). Meanwhile, the rich Rugby Union were able to use their wealth to expand and promote their game, and also to pretty much try and destroy RL at any chance they got - they needed to, they knew that if RL became mainstream then RU would have quickly become irrelevant and died out.

In terms of popularity, RL is big in Australia because that's pretty much the only place where the sport was able to develop unhindered. RL is also roughly the same size as union in England - the reason union appears to be bigger is because, as mentioned above, league is played by the working class in the North and union is played by the private schoolboys in the South - guess who controls the media in the UK? I'd actually say at a domestic level, RL is quite a bit stronger than RU in England - crowds are equivalent at matches and there's no comparison in terms of TV ratings, RL is far better. It's only really for international matches that Union gains more popularity, again because of the influence of the media in the South.

There's a long, bitter history between the two codes, it's pretty interesting to look into and honestly it doesn't really paint a good picture for RU. Sadly most of this information isn't really common knowledge, I guess that's just a legacy of the control and influence that the rich have had on the media over the years.

EH, I think that is a pretty good summary

There are a couple of good books which address some of the points Rampart66 has brought up.
I have paperback editions of "Rugby's Great Split" by Tony Collins and "Rugby's Class War" by David Hinchliffe, which look at both the origins of Rugby League Football and the ongoing division between the two rugby codes.
Unfortunately my copy of "The Rugby Rebellion" by Sean Fagan (a sometimes poster on this forum) which looks at the beginnings of Rugby League in Australasia, is on long term loan.
Also, I sold my copy of "The Forbidden Game" by Mike Rylance, which covers the beginnings of Rugby League in France. There is a new paperback version available now. I just can't help but think that there should be a movie made based on this book. Russell Crowe to play Jean Galia ? :sarcasm:

Rampart66, if you would like, I can loan you the first two books.
These would give you a better understanding of the development of Rugby League, and why it is not more widespread than it ought to be.
pm me if you are interested.

 

[PacificCoastRL]

Nearly right. There weren't any Cumbrian teams at the formation of the NU in 1895. You now have to form an anagram of LanYor. NY Oral?

That's what I thought, but, somewhere on the internet I read that Cumbria was involved in some way. I'm trying to find that article, but am having no luck. Maybe I dreamt it. Nevertheless, you get my drift. Again, I don't see how calling rugby league "American rugby" would help to differentiate between the two codes. I would rather see the name change globally, taking "rugby" out of the name, then everyone is on the same page.

 

[juro]

Dumb question, but if it was referred to as Northern Union originally, why did it change to Rugby League?

 

[Rampart66]

Rampart66, if you would like, I can loan you the first two books.
These would give you a better understanding of the development of Rugby League, and why it is not more widespread than it ought to be.
pm me if you are interested.

Thanks for the offer. I've been meaning to buy Sean's book. I love the work he's done with his web site, RL1908. There's so much great history on there.

I'll probably look around the internet and buy them all so that I have my own copies. And then I can share them with others.

 

[Poul]

I think it would be fair to say that there has been a "mixed" reaction at best to the idea of a name change to "American Rugby" :sarcasm:, but how about changing the terminologies of the game? e.g., touchdowns for tries, wide receivers for wingers etc.
Do you think that this would be a good idea to make the game more "accessible" to an American audience, or would it just make the game look like a "poor man's football (American)"?

 

[PacificCoastRL]

I think it would be fair to say that there has been a "mixed" reaction at best to the idea of a name change to "American Rugby" :sarcasm:, but how about changing the terminologies of the game? e.g., touchdowns for tries, wide receivers for wingers etc.
Do you think that this would be a good idea to make the game more "accessible" to an American audience, or would it just make the game look like a "poor man's football (American)"?

I don't think that is necessary Poul. I watched some of the Las Vegas 7's today and the announcers were making comparisons to American football when the need arose. IMO that seems the way to educate American fans. I don't think that rugby league needs to lose its identity. It will just take education as the game gains a foothold. I think American sports fans need to be given some credit for their intelligence, they will figure it out.

 

[Poul]

Dumb question, but if it was referred to as Northern Union originally, why did it change to Rugby League?

Not such a dumb question.

Here is my understanding of events:

When the "great split" occurred in 1895, the administration of the breakaway northern based rugby football clubs referred to itself as the "Northern Union" (NU) as opposed to the "Rugby Football Union" (RFU).
However, implicit in this title was that the game being administered was "Rugby Football".
The competition that the NU established was referred to as the "Northern Rugby Football League".
At the time of its establishment, the NU were playing "Rugby Football", as it was at that time, and had not intended to be playing a different version of the game.
This is why, IMO, that fans in the north of England still refer to the game colloquially as "Rugby".
There were however some relatively rapid evolutionary changes to NU rugby, such as the abolition of lineouts, and most significantly the adoption of the play the ball, that by the time it was introduced to New Zealand and Australia, there were significant differences from the RFU's code.
The inaugural governing body (1908) in Australia was the "New South Wales Rugby Football League", (NSWRFL), and maintained this name up to 1984 when it became the New South Wales Rugby League (NSWRL).
In the southern hemisphere the NU's version of rugby (Rugby League) had been seen to be different since its inception, so that the southern hemisphere Rugby Leagues (NSWRFL, QRL, NZRL) had by 1921 requested the Northern Union to alter its name to the "English Rugby Football League".
The governing body in the UK is still to this day referred to as the "Rugby Football League" (RFL).

So, you could say that Rugby League is an Australian invention :shock:

I hope that American Rugby is able to develop its own unique culture, yet do so without altering the essential fabric of the game.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I think it would be fair to say that there has been a "mixed" reaction at best to the idea of a name change to "American Rugby" :sarcasm:, but how about changing the terminologies of the game? e.g., touchdowns for tries, wide receivers for wingers etc.
Do you think that this would be a good idea to make the game more "accessible" to an American audience, or would it just make the game look like a "poor man's football (American)"?

I think that makes a lot more sense, as terminologies vary to a point even between the northern and southern hemispheres already, and at the end of the day the terms wouldn't really be any more accurate or inaccurate than the current terms. As long as we only use the American terms in situations where they make sense and don't actually end up being misleading then it probably would be quite useful. Calling tries touchdowns would be an obvious example where it would work.