"American Rugby"?

[krudmonk]

Rules vary slightly in both the NHL and NBA from their respective international games, but that doesn't create a great disadvantage or discredit the leagues at all.

 

[Paullyboy]

Slight changes in the court size and the line distances is fairly significant to 11 a side though.

 

[Poul]

Wasn't 11-a-side trialed in the NYC last year or the year before? I forget where and when exactly, but my point is that it's not without precedent.

IIRC it was in the first seaon of the NYC. I didn't see any of these games in their entirety, but I think there were a lot of points scored.

Already we have different versions of Rugby League, namely mini footy and mod league.

I think this could also be a good way to introduce Rugby League to American youth, although Lawrence appears to be doing a very good job in this regard so far.

Perhaps 3 levels of Rugby League could be introduced for school age children, with rules to reflect the progressive development and maturity throughout these age groups.

7-a-side for under 12 years (Elementary Rugby?)

9-a-side for under 15 years ( Junior Rugby?)

11-a-side for 15 to 18 years ( American Rugby?)

Then, after high school, players could progress to the full 13-a-side game.

 

[Rampart66]

With due respect, there appears to be some contradictory statements in your post. You say that most Americans know what rugby is, yet they are not aware of the fact that there are two codes of rugby!
I would contend that it is more likely that some Americans have some awareness of "rugby" which is probably due to some exposure to rugby union (eg ruwc), and not very likely to Rugby League.

I can see your point, but it would be like someone from Australia or England knowing about Gridiron Football. They may know basic parts like down and distance rules and mode of game play, but I doubt many realize that there is also a Canadian code (with variations of the downs and a larger field, which is why NFL teams have never played CFL teams in an exhibition) or that there are variations in the college game and a different set of overtime rules.

Most people know that rugby is a tough sport (likened to gladiatorial combat) without forward passes. They really don't know much more than that (really, most don't know about the two different codes or the schism that took place in England). If you showed someone a Rugby League game and asked what sport they are watching, they would tell you "rugby"...not "rugby league", just "rugby".

Changing the name to suit American spectators is unnecessary. The sport has a history that spans over a century. It has a long and storied history and that history is important in "selling" the sport to an American sports fan. Now, there are some changes in terminology that could help like ("touchdown" or "out of bounds") that will help to understand the game easier.

I also think that it's best to keep the game to 13 a side (rather than 11). If the fields were available to all AMNRL and USARL teams, I'm certain that all of them would play on the 110m x 68m field. It's important to keep the game as genuine as possible even though there are many restrictions on the venues.

Like I have said previously...

The only thing that is preventing rugby league from really going mainstream is someone with deep pockets investing in the game and giving teams more resources to succeed (rather than teams on shoestring budgets worrying about sponsors, fundraising and alternate revenue sources). It has the ability to compete with baseball as a summer spectator sport. Once people see the game for the first time (like me), they'll be hooked and they'll want to learn more.

 

[Rampart66]

If the name changes in the US and they go to things like 4 quarter games or 11 aside it becomes a different game and may not help the US when they play international games.

We have enough problems with the NRL not using international rules IMO.

Many teams play with four 20 minute quarters when the heat and humidity are at dangerous levels (since we play the sport during the summer months).

But I agree that 11 aside changes the game too much.

 

[Evil Homer]

The only thing that is preventing rugby league from really going mainstream is someone with deep pockets investing in the game and giving teams more resources to succeed (rather than teams on shoestring budgets worrying about sponsors, fundraising and alternate revenue sources). It has the ability to compete with baseball as a summer spectator sport. Once people see the game for the first time (like me), they'll be hooked and they'll want to learn more.

The point Poul is making is that, if people's first exposure to 'rugby' is rugby league, then that's great. If their first exposure is to rugby union, then there's a good chance that they won't be interested or want to watch again, because quite frankly union is boring. I've spoken to and seen numerous sports fans in the UK and elsewhere who, when I've tried to talk about RL, have just replied that they 'don't like rugby' based on their knowledge of union. You then have to go through the process of explaining that they are different sports etc, and often people are still dismissive because they don't understand how big the difference is. Sometimes you can get through to them, but it's much harder than if they had come in with a blank slate.

 

[bobmar28]

Why does the name of the game and the rules have to change. People, it's a great game - the greatest game in my mind. It doesn't need to be changed. Poul, a while back you asked for some American thoughts on changing the name. Rampart 66, who I think has taken the time to do some research, doesn't feel a name change is necessary, and is American, yet you shoot holes in his reasoning. I'm not sure it matters to you what anyone says. I think you see your agenda as the only answer.

The name needs to be changed, not the rules. This game is not rugby and a new name would help to solve that problem.

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

Sorry, can't be bothered to read all 12 pages, but am I the only one that really doesn't see how renaming the game "American Rugby" would make a difference? What is the aim of that change? Are we expecting them to call it "American Rugby" and like it more because it has "America" in it? Because I think that's very naive! They don't call gridiron "American Football", they just call it "football". And if we're trying to con them into believing that the rules are "Americanized" and somehow special to them, then we're just trying to kid people. We're not here to lie, and it's not a good way to get fans.

Basically, it's a ridiculous and poorly thought-out idea.

I have no issue with naming the sport something different in America, in fact it's something I've suggested many times to help our game's identity not only in USA but all over the world (even football is called "soccer" over there to differentiate). But "American Rugby" is just daft.

I think calling tackles "downs", etc. is fine as well. Whatever is easier for them to understand. But don't change the rules otherwise it's not rugby league anymore. The poster that suggested allowing forward passes and having breaks every 5 minutes is either pulling our legs or doesn't actually like the sport.

 

[Evil Homer]

Sorry, can't be bothered to read all 12 pages, but am I the only one that really doesn't see how renaming the game "American Rugby" would make a difference? What is the aim of that change?

Maybe you should read the thread..

 

[Poul]

I can see your point, but it would be like someone from Australia or England knowing about Gridiron Football. They may know basic parts like down and distance rules and mode of game play, but I doubt many realize that there is also a Canadian code (with variations of the downs and a larger field, which is why NFL teams have never played CFL teams in an exhibition) or that there are variations in the college game and a different set of overtime rules.

Most people know that rugby is a tough sport (likened to gladiatorial combat) without forward passes. They really don't know much more than that (really, most don't know about the two different codes or the schism that took place in England). If you showed someone a Rugby League game and asked what sport they are watching, they would tell you "rugby"...not "rugby league", just "rugby".

Changing the name to suit American spectators is unnecessary. The sport has a history that spans over a century. It has a long and storied history and that history is important in "selling" the sport to an American sports fan. Now, there are some changes in terminology that could help like ("touchdown" or "out of bounds") that will help to understand the game easier.

I also think that it's best to keep the game to 13 a side (rather than 11). If the fields were available to all AMNRL and USARL teams, I'm certain that all of them would play on the 110m x 68m field. It's important to keep the game as genuine as possible even though there are many restrictions on the venues.

Like I have said previously...

The only thing that is preventing rugby league from really going mainstream is someone with deep pockets investing in the game and giving teams more resources to succeed (rather than teams on shoestring budgets worrying about sponsors, fundraising and alternate revenue sources). It has the ability to compete with baseball as a summer spectator sport. Once people see the game for the first time (like me), they'll be hooked and they'll want to learn more.

I'll concede that most non-North Americans, including myself, would find it difficult to differentiate between American and Canadian Football. However, I would contend that Rugby League and rugby union are quite different sports, and have been on paths of divergent evolution since the "Great Split" in 1895, whereas to my knowledge Canadian and American Football have become more convergent.

If, as you say, an American watching Rugby League for the first time identifies it as "rugby", how do you go about differentiating it from rugby union, which the same person may have already seen, and possibly dismissed it contemptuously?
Do you truly believe that calling the sport "Rugby League" in the USA is going to gain currency?
I'm obviously not on the ground there, but I find it difficult to believe that this will occur, and that people will just refer to it as "rugby".
Once people become acquainted with Rugby League, then I will agree that the product sells itself, but I believe that the confusion with the name potentially limits the number of people who might become involved.
Out of curiosity, how did you become acquainted with Rugby League, and what was your knowledge of "rugby" prior to this?
Do you think that if Rugby League had had a distinctive name clearly differentiating it from rugby union, that you might have become involved earlier?

I've not advocated major rule changes, just a change in name and in terminologies.
4 quarter football I believe is essential in the oppressive heat and humidity in Summer. I don't believe that alters the fabric of the game.
I have advocated reduced player numbers, u.t., 11-a-side for high school players on high school football fields.
I believe that that will give young players a better chance to develop the necessary passing and handling skills which may be more difficult in a cluttered playing environment.
We have modified versions of the game here; mini footy and mod league, and nobody is suggesting that these kids aren't playing Rugby League, or that they should be playing 13-a-side, or that it is detrimental to their development.
I'm sure there would be a few NRL players who have played these versions of the game.

I'd agree that it would require someone with deep pockets for Rugby League to make the quantum leap into the American sporting landscape and psyche.
In the meantime we have to rely on amateur devotees on the ground (such as yourself :thumb) and remote armchair fans (like myself ) to further the cause of the game in the USA, whether we end up calling it Rugby League or American Rugby.

 

[Rampart66]

Out of curiosity, how did you become acquainted with Rugby League, and what was your knowledge of "rugby" prior to this?
Do you think that if Rugby League had had a distinctive name clearly differentiating it from rugby union, that you might have become involved earlier?

I became acquainted with Rugby League when I was doing research for a book that I was writing (about defunct sports franchises). The Pittsburgh RL team came up in Google search and I wanted to know more about it. I contacted the person running the team and offered to volunteer to work on graphics, printing and the team web site.

At the time I didn't know that there were two different codes of rugby, but the idea of a Pittsburgh rugby team piqued my interest. I was told about the different codes and different rules and directed to the NRL and Engage Super League's websites to learn about the sport.

While leaning about the sport, I had an opportunity to watch some Union games. I watched enough to learn that I found it difficult to watch and didn't like the constant stoppages.

I was told the Union is more fun to play and League is more fun to watch. I guess this is true.

I can see the point of a name change or tweaking of the name. I don't think a major change is needed. Maybe something as simple as Rugby Thirteens or something that doesn't detract from the rich history of the sport, but separates it as a different sport from Union (while also defining the rules with 13 players).

So, yes, I did get involved without knowing that there were two codes.

 

[Evil Homer]

I was told the Union is more fun to play and League is more fun to watch. I guess this is true.

Union isn't more fun to play either, unless you weigh over 20 stone and struggle to run more than 15 metres without needing a break.

 

[bobmar28]

Isn't league known as thirteens in France? How about Super 13's?

 

[Evil Homer]

Isn't league known as thirteens in France? How about Super 13's?

It's known as 'Rugby 13' because the name rugby league was banned by Nazis during World War 2. In fact they weren't even allowed to use the word 'rugby' until recently, the sport was called 'game of 13'. If they'd come up with a better alternative name that could have been a blessing in disguise really.

'Rugby Thirteens' implies a lesser version of RU, similar to rugby sevens. It wouldn't really solve any of the problems associated with the name rugby league and certainly would not imply a seperate sport.

 

[ProxyIronMan]

Union isn't more fun to play either, unless you weigh over 20 stone and struggle to run more than 15 metres without needing a break.

Do you really believe that ?. I thought you were supposed to be a moderator not a moron?.

 

[Evil Homer]

Do you really believe that ?. I thought you were supposed to be a moderator not a moron?.

Yes, there's no way anyone could find Union more enjoyable apart from the 'scrummaging specialists', many of whom are physically too unfit to play RL. The rest of the players spend a high percentage of the time stood around doing nothing.

 

[Evil Homer]

Just for anyone who is still confused about the reasoning behind this thread, read this post from a Bristol soccer fan when he heard that his team's stadium was hosting a match in the 2013 World Cup: http://www.brfcforum.co.uk/index.ph...orld-cup-venue/page__view__findpost__p__99956

Has he ever watched RL? Clearly not. Is he ever going to? Unlikely because of the stigma attached with the word 'rugby'. He's already got a negative attitude to the sport because of his perception of rugby union.

 

[PacificCoastRL]

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?

 

[krudmonk]

Just for anyone who is still confused about the reasoning behind this thread, read this post from a Bristol soccer fan when he heard that his team's stadium was hosting a match in the 2013 World Cup: http://www.brfcforum.co.uk/index.ph...orld-cup-venue/page__view__findpost__p__99956

Has he ever watched RL? Clearly not. Is he ever going to? Unlikely because of the stigma attached with the word 'rugby'. He's already got a negative attitude to the sport because of his perception of rugby union.

It seems England is a tough market for any non-soccer sport if even League Two runts are getting high and mighty.

 

[Evil Homer]

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?

I can't work it out, but I've thought about the idea of a made-up name before. The trouble is, they all sound stupid. I'm sure if we weren't familiar with the likes of hockey and tennis that they would sound stupid as well, but nobody bats an eyelid since those are established names.

It seems England is a tough market for any non-soccer sport if even League Two runts are getting high and mighty.

It's not so much that, there's just a lot of people who say they 'don't like rugby' based on their experiences of RU. And since RL is not as mainstream as RU, a lot of the time they assume that it's even worse and are down on it before they even get started. You hear all the time about people who watch RL reluctantly or with low expectations and then can't believe how good it is, and I'd probably be the same - if I didn't know about RL there's no way I'd willingly attend a 'rugby' event.