That's just it. If you like to watch things like scrums and line-outs, then it's natural that you will enjoy Union. Most League fans see the essence of rugby as running with the ball and tackling - as you have said, the rules of League place the emphasis on this, and generally this is seen to create a far more entertaining game both for spectators and players.
To me and the vast majority of others, the set-plays and stoppages in Union make for an extremely frustrating and tedious affair with actual 'rugby' at a minimum, and the majority of time being wasted with technicalities. However, if you appreciate these technicalities and stoppages then fair enough, that's your opinion. Personally, I don't like Union because I find it incredibly boring to watch and feel that the rules are outdated and make very little sense. I also dislike Union because of its strong historical links to fascism and elitism, as well as the constant efforts by Union establishments to destroy League over the years. However that's just me. If you can appreciate the sport then that's your right to do so, and overall I thought your post was pretty fair.
Im glad you found my post pretty fair. I hope youll think the same of this one. Fairness is all that matters to me.
Your remarks about links of rugby union with fascism and elitism are, in my honest opinion, an evident exaggeration for the first, and a surrender to shallow stereotypes for the second.
Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar. A part from over specialized studies by high level scholars, its widespread knowledge that these men were all belonging to the same bunch. They all were fascists. Can you give me evidence of rugby unions seeking and obtaining help, protection, money, or whatever you like, from one of them ? Rugby union in those countries was in those days a sport played by a tiny minority of people, with no place in the media. I guess the ruling class of those countries in those days didnt even know about the existence of a sport called rugby. What other possible link with fascism ? Do you have news about links in Greece across the 60s & 70s ? Something happened in south america ? Maybe general Videla was a union fan ?
The whole Vichy issue is another story. Nothing happened because of a link of rugby union with fascism, it was all about few people who unexpectedly found themselves in power in a strange and unique moment in the history of that country, and decided to take advantage of that, much more for the love of money than for hate of rugby league. The failed compensation after the war was part of the flawed process in which many guilty of cooperation with the nazis dodged any punishment, and many others less guilty didnt. A sad page in the history of Europe, but even considering all of that, the link of rugby union with fascism is still a statement with little or no meaning. And the whole matter had very little to do with the decline of French RL in the 70s and 80s that almost led the sport to die out. In 1951 ( seven years after the collapse of Vichy regime ) more than 100000 people in the streets of Marseille cheered the national team that had just won the Rugby League World Cup in Paris. French RU could do nothing to make these people disappear. French Rugby League did it on its own, through bad management and sheer incompetence, failing to catch any opportunity of turning the game to full professionalism.
About elitism I think you may be right about England and Australia, but although these two nations have been fundamental in rugby union history, the world is much bigger. From the very beginning, in every other nation ( a part from perhaps Scotland ) rugby union has been played by everyone who liked it regardless of social status. In Wales and Ireland ( where the only issue was the Englishness of the game ) its been always easy to see workers of every kind playing the game. France has its own peculiarities but the social level of players has been at times an issue within the union movement as a reason to enforce rivalry between clubs, but the movement itself never had ( and never looked for ) a clear social identity. As far as I know rugby union has always been played in New Zealand literally by anyone. The same happened later here in Italy, where the game didnt spread in the whole country, but has always been played by people of every social status. So after all its fair to say that the close identification of rugby union with a social status has been real and strong only in England and Australia.
About the war against league ( letting alone the Vichy case ), I think you should accept the fact that in these days rugby union is a professional sport trying to grow and expand across the world, and league is a rival in a global competition for audience. IRB and single unions are just doing their job.
And finally, I know that every league fan in England has a little diary started by their grandfather where they noted down all sort of facts showing the hostile and mean attitude of union establishment towards rugby league. If even half of that was true, it still would be regrettable, but does it justify the stubbornness with which in the year 2011 you keep describing rugby union as the game of evil ?
Cheers
