The Forbidden Game-insightful book on what has & can happen

[Knownothing]

I end with:RL is a supremely better football code than RU. It is much faster and a more attractive version of rugby!

This is the heart of your argument. You do not seem able to accept that other people, particularly people who have grown up in a rugby union environment, might actually prefer rugby union.


Try this test on yourself. Rugby league is a far faster and more attractive version of football. Why has it not overtaken American Football in popularity? Why compare rugby league only with rugby union? Why not compare it with other, similar, sports? American football has tackles, they play with a similar ball, they even have a limited tackle count. Surely the Americans would prefer the excitement of a similar, but more attractive, code of football?


Rugby league is a whole lot faster then American Football. Do you agree? You believe that it is a lot more attractive than American Football. Yes or no?

If you answer yes to both these questions, then please explain why those stupid Americans still prefer their strange, slow, boring, game.

 

[Te Kaha]

It's not my style to be derogative but Teh Haka is disturbingly a denier of very real repression against the game of RL.

What have we to gain by informing and making an awareness of this repression?

It's not something I'd like to do!

It's there and we have given examples throughout this thread that Teh Haka wants to qualify and quantify. Needless to state that the many examples brought to this site are quantifiable.

I'm not in the habit of making up scenarios. Your pedantic and evasive response reeks of a person whom has little regard for RL! And very defensive for RU!

These are very real examples and documented as seen with the French, English, Moroccan, Russian, South African etc examples. Teh Haka refuses to acknowledge these examples! For what purpose! Has he shares in RU? Is he really a RU old boy running amuck in a RL website? All very real assumptions given his disdain and continued doubts of the evidence that has been contributed throughout this thread.

I end with:RL is a supremely better football code than RU. It is much faster and a more attractive version of rugby!

Do you agree with this comment Teh Haka!?

Once again its rhetoric and opinion... not to mention straight forward stupidity.. i mean really, " shares in RU"? you are now jumping out of reality.... and this " continued doubts of the evidence ".. WHAT EVIDENCE?? you havent supplied any... at all.

If this evidence is real then.. once again...

Instead of making things up and espousing opinion you should bring in documented evidence of the IRB or any RU using illegal methods to supress RL and then take it to the relevant authorities.. You cant, because you dont have any such evidence

 

[taipan]

Some people are in denial.
As rugby league could not gain access to the British armed services til 1994,yet could when union became pro in 1995 ,who the hell prevented access in the preceeding years?
The royal family? The Beefeaters from the Tower of London? The owners of Harrods? The two Ronnies? Rolf Harris?
No influence whatsoever from people within the services of a union persuasion :sarcasm: No looking the other way by the RFU or the IRB?:lol:
It was plainly stated that when union went pro,other restrictions on rl were relaxed by the RFU.
The fact now rugby league is the fastest growing Army sport.No wonder union people were concerned by rl in the amateur years.

Rugby league for years had been pushing to get the code into the Armed Services in the UK even bringing it up in Parliament,and of course there was no official public union decree ATT.That would be leaving the code wide open to discrimination.
The old tradition argument is the modus operandi.The Sgt Schultz effect.

 

[Te Kaha]

Some people are in denial.
As rugby league could not gain access to the British armed services til 1994,yet could when union became pro in 1995 ,who the hell prevented access in the preceeding years?
The royal family? The Beefeaters from the Tower of London? The owners of Harrods? The two Ronnies? Rolf Harris?
No influence whatsoever from people within the services of a union persuasion :sarcasm: No looking the other way by the RFU or the IRB?:lol:
It was plainly stated that when union went pro,other restrictions on rl were relaxed by the RFU.
The fact now rugby league is the fastest growing Army sport.No wonder union people were concerned by rl in the amateur years.

Rugby league for years had been pushing to get the code into the Armed Services in the UK even bringing it up in Parliament,and of course there was no official public union decree ATT.That would be leaving the code wide open to discrimination.
The old tradition argument is the modus operandi.The Sgt Schultz effect.

Where is the proof that the RFU or IRB had anything to do with it. In the armed forces a single person can prevent something happening if they have a high enough rank.

Its funny how the words "in denial" keep getting thrown around when there hasn't been any proof bought forward to deny.

 

[Perth Red]

You keep saying the rfu/IRB, we are talking about a systemic attempt by union to subjugate league, be that a union loving headmaster who bans league in the school (like my school), a 15's old boy major general who bans league in the army, a union influenced minister as in Morroco or a union national body as in France.

 

[Te Kaha]

You keep saying the rfu/IRB, we are talking about a systemic attempt by union to subjugate league, be that a union loving headmaster who bans league in the school (like my school), a 15's old boy major general who bans league in the army, a union influenced minister as in Morroco or a union national body as in France.

One does not equal the other. Individuals do not equal a code.

 

[madunit]

Well responded Bronco Rob.

Their are some amazing comments in this thread in denial of the persecution RL has had to deal with over the years and to this day.

The repression for the game of RL is truly evident yet we have people within RL websites actively diverting and deflecting this very real issue against our great sport!

Don't be a coward. I have NEVER denied any wrong doing against league. NOT ONCE. NOT EVER.

Your blind ignorance and stubborn thickheadedness makes it near impossible not to start abusing you, because you are completely incapable of understanding someone's point that differs even slightly to yours, no matter how many facts are presented to you by people with more knowledge on the matter than you.

I have mates

Stop lying.

viewing this thread

More cowards, if they do exist.

and they are amazed at some of the "tactics " and antics of the contributors who are in denial of the repression that has been suffered by the sport of RL. It's a real eye opener at how difficult it is to get the truth(widespread repression of RL courtesy of RU bias in the upper echelons of society) out there even amongst so called "fans of the game of RL"!

This is the biggest nonsensical, irrlevant piece of commentary in this thread, and you continue to trot it out in your defence because you are the only one who is too closed minded to understand and comprehend the views of others.

I have 3.2 million friends who view this thread and they all agree with me and they are all professional rugby league players who suffered at the hands of the Vichy goverbnment.

My bullshit mates story trumps yours.

You talk about wanting to have a serious discussion and then keep resorting back to these imaginary people who agree with you, none of which supports your argument because the problem here is not your argument, but your inability to understand the posts of others.

I'm sure this has happened elsewhere and on numerous occasions but the 'denial people' of this thread will gladly view this as an isolated incident. Amazing!

As I explained thoroughly before, the Vichy incident is unique and won't ever be repeated, thus you cannot use it as an example of trend, which you have been hell bent on doing since you started the thread.

Put simply LJC, and I know you won't understand this, but I type it anyway as I tend to feel a bit capricious when I'm bored and I see an uneducated buffoon bumbling his way blindly through an argument on a topic he has no substantial knowledge about.

You cannot debate this topic because you do not have even a modicum level of knowledge on the issue, which requires an understanding of both sides of the story.

You cannot, have not and will not accept facts that counter your ignorant belief.

You cannot, have not and will not understand the perspective of others, even when they are agreeing with your concerns.

You are, quite simply and oh so very clearly, a persistent idiot with nowhere near enough knowledge on this topic and no intent to obtain any, which makes you a troll.

 

[madunit]

As rugby league could not gain access to the British armed services til 1994,yet could when union became pro in 1995 ,who the hell prevented access in the preceeding years?

In 1944, a British Army League team played games against a British Army Union team.

 

[taipan]

In 1944, a British Army League team played games against a British Army Union team.

And how many times since, during the amateur era? The war years created the odd exception to many things. 51 years is hardly a short passage of time.The soldiers in the trenches from both sides sang Christmas carols in france in WW1 for a short period,then back to all hell breaking loose.

Else there would be no necessity for the British RL parliamentary group spending many years to try and get the code recognised within the armed Services.I repeat where was the anti rl bias coming from ?

Rugby league was also played in Italy in the late 50s ,and due to its pro status and pressure on the Italian govt by a certain group,was unable to secure liability insurance for players.The code in the end folded.

I have played union at an Associated private school,and know how the "system "works regarding attitudes toward rl.

 

[madunit]

Thats quite irrelevant to the statement you made.

Fact is RL was played in british armed services half a century before you said they were.

They'd only have to have played 1 game to prove your statement wrong.

 

[madunit]

Furthermore, i'm not beating a drum for Union. I'm just presenting the facts.

 

[taipan]

Thats quite irrelevant to the statement you made.

Fact is RL was played in british armed services half a century before you said they were.

They'd only have to have played 1 game to prove your statement wrong.

If you wish to be pedantic for a one off social offering in wartime(as opposed to continuing access) which was not continued long term then so be it, you can claim a minor moral victory over me.

If as my point, is to emphasise the denial of rugby league up to 1995 in the armed services,not a one off that happened 51 years ago,then I am on the mark.I am on the same wavelength as the British rl parliamentary group,I mean what would they know.

The question has to be asked what happened the next 51 years.That (even by your comment) has not been answered.A war time morale booster is hardly an enduring endorsement FHS.

Don't particularly care what drum you are beating,the game was excluded officially(emphasis on officially) from the Armed Services.That was the relevance up to 1995.

 

[magpie4ever]

I believe Bobby Fulton played for the combined armed services rugby union side against a touring Welsh side (???) when he was doing national service in the 1960s.

He had played 1st grade for Manly (therefore, a professional), at the time.

I believe rugby union is still the preferred rugby code in the army forces; just like rugby league is the preferred rugby code in diocese catholic schools and rugby union is the preferred rugby code is GPS schools in NSW and Qld.

Point: - all organisations (including the armed forces and schools) are entitled to select the sports they play. You were or are not forced to play union in the armed forces, you just couldn't play league because it was not offered; just like I couldn't play union at school (catholic) because it was not offered.

 

[Knownothing]

I believe Bobby Fulton played for the combined armed services rugby union side against a touring Welsh side (???) when he was doing national service in the 1960s.

He had played 1st grade for Manly (therefore, a professional), at the time.

He played against the touring All Blacks. Presumably the Armed Forces had some sort of dispensation to allow professionals to play for their team - a manoeuvre which should have been more widely exploited. After all, by the letter of the laws of amateurism, all the All Blacks who played in the game were now professionals themselves, having played against a professional.


Bizarre. But then, amateurism was a relic of the British Empire and any student of history can find plenty worth criticising in our Anglo-Saxon heritage (those of us lucky, or unlucky, enough to own up to it).

 

[taipan]

I believe Bobby Fulton played for the combined armed services rugby union side against a touring Welsh side (???) when he was doing national service in the 1960s.

He had played 1st grade for Manly (therefore, a professional), at the time.

I believe rugby union is still the preferred rugby code in the army forces; just like rugby league is the preferred rugby code in diocese catholic schools and rugby union is the preferred rugby code is GPS schools in NSW and Qld.

Point: - all organisations (including the armed forces and schools) are entitled to select the sports they play. You were or are not forced to play union in the armed forces, you just couldn't play league because it was not offered; just like I couldn't play union at school (catholic) because it was not offered.

The fastest growing sport in the British army now is rugby leagueoint1

The Armed Services are not a privately owned organisation like private schools oint 2 (ie they are funded by Govt taxes,in a sense public property).Hence the very reasoning behind the British Parliamentary group's involvement.

I couldn't play league at a union school(and you know the one magpie),and I accepted that when union was amateur.It was hammered in to me so.It has not been amateur since 1995 .Even AFL is now in some union private schools.oint 3.

Then these union schools should not advertise themselves as having a full sporting curriculum to cover the needs of students. Point 4.

For me all sports repeat all ground sports should be available to students ,in all schools.

 

[madunit]

If you wish to be pedantic for a one off social offering in wartime(as opposed to continuing access) which was not continued long term then so be it, you can claim a minor moral victory over me.

If you want to make very clear statements that aren't correct and whinge when proven wrong, then carry on with your current form.

You very clearly said RL was not played in the British armed forces before 1994. A number of games were played by an actual British RL team as far back as 1944. Maybe in the future you could be more accurrate with your comments to avoid you looking foolish.

If as my point, is to emphasise the denial of rugby league up to 1995 in the armed services,not a one off that happened 51 years ago,then I am on the mark.I am on the same wavelength as the British rl parliamentary group,I mean what would they know.

The Army Rugby League was formed in October 1993 by Major Martin Morris.

You are getting closer with your guesses though.

The question has to be asked what happened the next 51 years.That (even by your comment) has not been answered.A war time morale booster is hardly an enduring endorsement FHS.

You speak as though Rugby Union was the only game allowed to be played. Even if it were, there's no evidence put forward as yet to suggest that this was an influence that the IRB had over the armed services.

Don't particularly care what drum you are beating,the game was excluded officially(emphasis on officially) from the Armed Services.That was the relevance up to 1995.

The British Army Rugby League was formed in 1993. They became an officially recognised sport in the services in April 1994. It took just 6 months.

Those are facts.

It very possibly could be a case that because no Rugby League body existed in the British Armed Services prior to 1993 may have played a major role in Rugby League not being played more frequently in the past.

Please put forward your facts to suggest it was entirely to do with Rugby Union.

I'm genuinely intrigued.

 

[magpie4ever]

He played against the touring All Blacks. Presumably the Armed Forces had some sort of dispensation to allow professionals to play for their team - a manoeuvre which should have been more widely exploited. After all, by the letter of the laws of amateurism, all the All Blacks who played in the game were now professionals themselves, having played against a professional.


Bizarre. But then, amateurism was a relic of the British Empire and any student of history can find plenty worth criticising in our Anglo-Saxon heritage (those of us lucky, or unlucky, enough to own up to it).

Thanks mate, I know he had played against an international touring union squad.

 

[magpie4ever]

The fastest growing sport in the British army now is rugby leagueoint1

The Armed Services are not a privately owned organisation like private schools oint 2 (ie they are funded by Govt taxes,in a sense public property).Hence the very reasoning behind the British Parliamentary group's involvement.

I couldn't play league at a union school(and you know the one magpie),and I accepted that when union was amateur.It was hammered in to me so.It has not been amateur since 1995 .Even AFL is now in some union private schools.oint 3.

Then these union schools should not advertise themselves as having a full sporting curriculum to cover the needs of students. Point 4.

For me all sports repeat all ground sports should be available to students ,in all schools.

If this was offered at the same time (2nd and 3rd tern - winter sports) ie: union, league, soccer and AFL; you would find that the standard would be diluted, re: number of students to cover each sport, for the large majority of schools.

 

[taipan]

If you want to make very clear statements that aren't correct and whinge when proven wrong, then carry on with your current form.

You very clearly said RL was not played in the British armed forces before 1994. A number of games were played by an actual British RL team as far back as 1944. Maybe in the future you could be more accurrate with your comments to avoid you looking foolish.

The Army Rugby League was formed in October 1993 by Major Martin Morris.

You are getting closer with your guesses though.

You speak as though Rugby Union was the only game allowed to be played. Even if it were, there's no evidence put forward as yet to suggest that this was an influence that the IRB had over the armed services.


The British Army Rugby League was formed in 1993. They became an officially recognised sport in the services in April 1994. It took just 6 months.

Those are facts.

It very possibly could be a case that because no Rugby League body existed in the British Armed Services prior to 1993 may have played a major role in Rugby League not being played more frequently in the past.

Please put forward your facts to suggest it was entirely to do with Rugby Union.

I'm genuinely intrigued.

Put simply British rl parliamentary group lobbied for official inclusion.They did not do it to pass the time of day.If that is looking foolish and my support ,so be it.You question their motives?

Why be intrigued .I simply cynically questioned who would have influence .RU leaning people with the RFU and IRB looking the other way?
Who else would benefit?

 

[taipan]

If this was offered at the same time (2nd and 3rd tern - winter sports) ie: union, league, soccer and AFL; you would find that the standard would be diluted, re: number of students to cover each sport, for the large majority of schools.

Don't buy that concept champ.
If that indeed was the consideration,then soccer should never have been introduced into my old school,as it is just about the major sport in terms of numbers.
You and I know there are numbers of students that come from the bush with a rl background,and have no choice but to play union or soccer.
Schools could accommodate rl 9s as an example or union 7s in place of the full on rugby codes.Some of these schools have numbers up to 1200