Onions evolution, soon it will be League

[G@v]

Yet more evidence that onion will one day become League.
'High time to replace the line-out with a scrum'

Here are a couple of paragraph's from an article by a RU journalist from the Independent newspaper (UK). The rest of the article is mostly irrelevent rah rah tosh.
"In the interest of keeping the game moving at all costs, flagrantly crooked feeds are now tolerated, as they were on Saturday, without being penalised in any way. Indeed, they are not severely penalised at all, being followed, if detected, by an indirect free-kick. When last, in an international, did you see a genuine strike against the head, as distinct from a disrupted scrum leading to an unexpected change of possession? Soon the scrum-half will merely have to bounce the ball off the outside leg of the loose-head prop, as in rugby league, and it will be off and away again." 'The trouble is that the lineout is now seen as a source of guaranteed possession, as the scrum became many years ago. In that case, why do we need it at all? Why not replace it with a scrum 10 metres in, with the put-in following the existing laws on the throw-in? That, you may say, would deprive a lot of beanpoles of gainful employment and make the game even more like rugby league. I am not convinced that this would be entirely a bad thing.'

To read the article in full click on the link below.
http://www.independent.co.uk/search.jsp?keywords=alan+watkins&submit=Go

 

[legend]

Gav, when I read the first line of the article I immediately thought"That, you may say, would deprive a lot of beanpoles of gainful employment and make the game even more like rugby league. I am not convinced that this would be entirely a bad thing.' as the writer stated. The union players rely on these breaks in play I feel and whilst different in skills,do not have the same level of stamina, fitness and endurance of the modern day RL player. The John Eales and Matt Cockbain style players would quickly become a thing of the past along with the very real possibility of fans feeling their game would become a cheap imitation of the superior code(which it is of course).

 

[G@v]

Legend, correct me if I'm wrong, but what is the point in a player like John Eales and the other beanpoles who's only real purpose it seems,is to win possession at the line-out. The same could besaid of the very specialised props in Union. These blokes will probably have to learn new skills.

What will happen with those onion fans who would feel they were watching an inferior version of League? Would they stick with the BS and pretense, come clean and admit we were right all along, or spit their collective dummies and form a new breakaway?

As the old Chinese curse goes, 'May you live in interesting times'.

 

[legend]

To be honest Gav, I think the fans would think they were being conned with an inferior version and would definitely switch to league and I think a simple rule change like the lineout one could be a big step bakwards for the so called running game.

I also saw the "huge" crowd figures for the Wallabies first tour game. Very impressive numbers.

 

[CanadianSteve]

I read in that full article that the ref was from NZ. Is that why the writer felt he just wanted to keep the game moving, because that's the SH style of rugby?
If union did make these changes and became more like league, would that be more acceptable in the SH than the NH, to union fans? Northern traditionalists wouldn't like it would they? But if union did become more like league, wouldn't they be able to sign even more league players to cross over, with their greater finances?
BTW, Gav, I seem to remember a thread on WORL a while back where you advocated a merger of the 2 codes. I think you said that even if league was no more, it would take over union from within and change union's rules to a more exciting game that was closer to league. Do I have that right? And where do you stand on that now, in light of this article

 

[G@v]

Steve, yes I did write about the eventual merger of the two codes over atWORL, and I still believe that union is moving towards the League game and that it would probably help things along if more RL players and coaches did move to RU in order to speed up that process. Their idea's are obviously going to rub off on their new team-mates in the inferior code.

I don't think it would matter a great deal if the fans in the more conservative NH nations played hardball. They rely on international competition, and if the SH is won over then they'd find themselves isolated. I don't think we have to win over the majority of onion fans, a significant minority - perhaps something like 25% -would swing things very much in League's favour.

Rugby Union fans obviously thought it would be a case ofbusiness as usual when they turned professional oblivious to the Pandoras Boxsuch a move had opened.

It's not a case of if but when the two codes merge, and it won't be an hybrid game.

 

[CanadianSteve]

"It's not a case of if but when the two codes merge, and it won't be an hybrid game." Wow. That should get a good discussion going.
Now I remember. I said to you back then that if union absorbed league and became more like league, such as dropping lineouts, maybe reducing the # of players to 13, etc. then the WOULD be a hybrid game, wouldn't it?
Anyway, a merged game with all the great players together in one sport sounds great to me, but I don't have the background of loyalty to either code. Surely most league diehards won't like the talk of a merged game

 

[imported_Mystery Man]

The essential difference between league and union is that when a player, in league, is tackled, he plays the ball. In union, when a player is tackled, there is a ruck or maul. All the other differences stem from here. The reason why I wouldn't like to see a merged game is because I believe that it would inevitably result in a game with a ruck/maul. This is because of the fact that union is the more powerful of the two games, off the field. The reason that I prefer league is because I believe that, because of its rules, it allows players more freedom and more opportunity to play a broad attacking game, and, as a result, produces, on the whole, superior ball-in-hand footballers. If there was a merged game, with a ruck/maul, I don't believe that we'd ever see the likes of Wally Lewis, Laurie Daley, Allan Langer, Andrew Johns, Darren Lockyer, Brad Fittler, etc., ever again. I believe that league, with the play-the-ball, will always produce better, all-around, attackingplayers than union, and, also, superior defensive players. League, in recent times, has raised the bar in both attack and defense, and union, in the Southern hemisphere, at least, has been quick to follow whatever the latest league trends are. Without league, not only do I believe that it would see the end of the truly great, complete, ball-in-hand footballer, but union would have nowhere to get its ideas from, either, and that game would stop improving, as well.

 

[G@v]

The reason why I believe the games will merge is due to the seemingly ever increasing change within the union game. If scrummaging is changing becoming more like a League scrum and line-outs are on the endangered list who's to say that rucks and mauls will survive? What I envisage is the almost complete Leagueification of the other code.

It will be a merged game in that union will get to a point where a merger of two almost identical games will become inevitable.

 

[imported_Mystery Man]

This is from a union site, and backs up what I was saying : http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/rugby/news/2001/10/30/FFXTHIX3DTC.html

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

However you look at it Union has been undergoing rapid changes since the game went professional, and most of the changes have been 'borrowed' from League. It is no coincidence that Australia has become the no 1 Union nation since professionalism set in. Australia has a culture of players having a go at both codes as juniors and the crossover of skills and techniques has been easier to achieve where everyone, even Union players, has a knowledge of League.

League is not moving towards Union, in fact it seems to be moving further away from what was traditionally the Union 'kick and clap' style, but Union is moving towards League rapidly.

 

[G@v]

MM, reading that article only makes me feel that onion is on an ever faster road toward a League style game. Their game is changing, they brought in RL coachesto tighten up on defense, now they will start to realise with more ex-Leagueattacking players (They don't favour our forwards, at least not yet) they will soon probably have to re-evaluate tactics yet again.

 

[imported_Mystery Man]

Gav, I agree with most of what you've been saying. I just hope that if they do come together, it is with either a play-the-ball (highly unlikely, in my opinion, due to union's pride) or a drastically modified ruck. Whatever the case, I wouldn't want a sport where players take the (union-style) safety-first approach. As a league follower, I find there to be nothing more pathetic than watching union players submitting in a tackle. I know it is a part oftheir game, but it is negative. With league, there are no limitations to what you can do with the ball. I hope, if the games do merge, this is taken into account.

Outside of that, I can see how a merged game would be great. In Australia, league is streets ahead of union, and has a great club competition, along with the state of origin. However, despite the Kangaroos probably being the world's best rugby side (either code), they don't have much opposition. A merger would also be great in England. You'd combine the great domestic game, that league has, with the prestige of union's international calender.

One thing that I would like to see, if a merger occured, is a reduction in the amount of test football. In my opinion, while union (in Australia) play a sensible amount of games, their domestic season in too short, and there is too much time spent playing and preparing for test football. If there was a merger, the obvious thing to do would be to disbandon the Super 12, with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa reverting to the NRL, NPC and Currie Cup. Have a season that goes for 20-22 weeks (including finals) before heading into the tests. State of Origin would be retained in Australia. This would produce a season unmatched in Australian sport, with league's strength at club at state level being combined with union's international schedule. Of course, Australia would be even more dominant than they are now, as league has about five times the amount of quality players that union does.

So, in summary, while I can see the massive benefits in a merger, I'd only want to see it occur if it meant that we are getting a game which produces the best players possible, and that means a league-like game. I've got no time for watching the likes of John Eales, or seeing Jonah Lomu play with shackles on.

 

[bender]

IMO the biggest problem with union is the kicking and penalties. If that could be sorted out, i could bear to watch the game. I think it would be a big step towards unification or leaguification if union got rid of the ridiculous kick out on the full rule in your own quarter rule and then adopted a quick 'handover'/play the ball for infringements in the scrum or ruck/maul. I believe that the adoption of these to rules could make for a very good game.

I dont have a problem with the requirement of tall second rowers or lumbering front rowers. These sorts of players have different rolls to play and it only gives the quicker halfbacks and 5/8s tired playersthat they can run rings around.

The benefits of unified game (forgetting the onfield product) I believe are slightly overestimated. I do not believe that Union has the great international structure they pretend to have at the moment.A unified structure would mean that France and South Africa would emerge as strong countries currently the same status as England (league). The British countries would all get more depth but would not improve all that greatly in class. Australia, I believe would maintain their dominance. Italy could be the sleeper in the field. The union infrastructure and money could combine with some of the underated Italian League players eg Davico, Corvo, etc and use the loose union qualification rules to field a very strong side.

The biggest improvement, ironically would be at administration and club level. The NRL would probably lose Auckland to the NPC but this would allow them to bring in the much sought 2nd brisbane side which would be the Qld Reds. There would be a serious WCC with SA, NZ, NRL and ESL all providing competive teams. The ESL would be the biggest winner with teams from Cardiff, Glascow and a couple from France being competive.

From a RL point of view it would be great to have the union outlook of expansion. This would really help the game in places like Russia, Lebannon, Italy, USA which would help the game really grow.

 

[imported_Mystery Man]

Bender, as long as the ruck/maul is retained, in its current form, you will never get rid of kicking or penalties. That is another reason why I am so much for the play-the-ball or a modified ruck.

 

[imported_Mystery Man]

Another article on league players switching to union - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/hi/english/rugby_union/newsid_1624000/1624336.stm

 

[G@v]

Exactly what I thought. When are these union writers going to wake up and realise the long term ramifications for their sport if more League stars make the switch? Do they seriously think that union will be the long term winner? Maybe in name, but not in nature.

To any League fan who shudders at the thought of more defections to the simpler code ask yourselves this! Which game will be the one forced to change it's way's to meet the tactical demands imposed by an influx of smarter players? Which players are the more likely to become dissenchanted with their game because their skills are not up to scratch?

When ever a union player switched to League, he had to adapt and it took some time to lift his standards. Players going in the opposite direction no doubt need to adapt, but they are at the same time much more likely to change the game of union, their superior skills will demand it. And the more who make that switch the faster the change.

 

[Marcus]

You guys are all dreaming!

First of all, if both games merged (hope to god it never happens), what benefit would union gain from it? None. What benefit would league gain from it? Heaps. I think thats a good enough reason for why it won't take place.

"When ever a union player switched to League, he had to adapt and it took some time to lift his standards. Players going in the opposite direction no doubt need to adapt, but they are at the same time much more likely to change the game of union, their superior skills will demand it. And the more who make that switch the faster the change."

GavBT, what kind of superior skills will change the game of union?

 

[imported_Roopy4246]

Marcus,
Gav is probably talking about tackling and running with the ball - skills barely heard of in Union.

 

[Marcus]

Roopy, I think you'll find union players are better tacklers than league. In union more one on one tackling occurs in league its more of a gang tackle that we see.

What I was going on about was the rules. What rules would change?