What is the Spirit of the Game?

[madunit]

In the case of France (albeit in the 30s), player deaths in union were also a factor.

The death's weren't that much of a factor to the birth of RL. They did play a role, along with the widespread 'secret' payment of players in French RU, in the game being basically condemned by the World's Governing body of the game.

French RL started about 5 or so years after those deaths from memory, when RU was a complete mess.

Rugby League in France was exciting, clean, fair, open (on and off the field) and due to that, it expanded like wildfire. I wouldn't be surprised if RL spread through France faster than it did in any other country.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Really the biggest change was players about payment to players, that is the Spirit of the Game the Doctor is talking about, that was why Rugby League was formed. It is nonsense to try and claim the game started in 1906. I have put bellow all the changes to Rugby League rules between 1895 and 1906. There were lots of changes between 1895 and 1904 that distance it from Rugby Union but the reason the Doctor pushes 1906 is that the ball the ball was introduced and and the number of players were reduced from 15 to 13 bringing in the rules that provide the significant difference from Union; however the rules are not the mystical "spirit of Rugby League" professionalism is!

As you can see there were many changes in the rules before 1906. The reason the doctor likes to falsely claim 1906 as the start of Rugby League is the fact this fundamental changes happened in 1906

I feel like this actually proves my point...

All of the rule changed from 1895-1905 were about cleaning up the game, making it faster and more exciting. However, NU and RFU could easily have remerged (i think this was probably the original hope of NU. For RFU to change, but keep the game united). This is like when NRL or SL adjust their rules to address issues, you wouldnt say they creating entirely new sports.

1895 was about the organising bodies; NU rejecting the authority of RFU (like our own SL war). It wasnt until 1906 that NU committed to fundamentally breaking away from the game of Rugby Union to create something unique. (If the Australia Super League had decided to introduce forward passes and 4 goal posts, only then would it have really stopped being the game of RL)

 

[unforgiven]

I feel like this actually proves my point...

All of the rule changed from 1895-1905 were about cleaning up the game, making it faster and more exciting. However, NU and RFU could easily have remerged (i think this was probably the original hope of NU. For RFU to change, but keep the game united). This is like when NRL or SL adjust their rules to address issues, you wouldnt say they creating entirely new sports.

1895 was about the organising bodies; NU rejecting the authority of RFU (like our own SL war). It wasnt until 1906 that NU committed to fundamentally breaking away from the game of Rugby Union to create something unique. (If the Australia Super League had decided to introduce forward passes and 4 goal posts, only then would it have really stopped being the game of RL)

The spirit of the game is not about the rules though, it is about the core beliefs behind its introduction. If you were arguing when did Rugby League start to look like the game we now know then you would have a point but that is not what you are saying.

 

[Timmah]

The spirit of the game is not about the rules though, it is about the core beliefs behind its introduction. If you were arguing when did Rugby League start to look like the game we now know then you would have a point but that is not what you are saying.

One could argue that all the contract breaking and whatnot that's happened this off-season is directly in the 'spirit of the game' given that the code itself was forged on players breaking their agreements with their RU clubs to form a breakaway. Same could even be said for the SL war.

 

[Perth Red]

The split in 1895, it was the beginning of an evolutionary process that turned a turgid boring sport into a fast paced hard hitting spectacle that rugby league is today. The fact we have never been afraid to change and adapt, not always for the better, the rules can be traced back to that moment in Huddersfield when the plebeians of the north told the oilks of the south to “get stuffed”. Damn shame we didn’t get Wales and Canada to join us!

 

[The Book of Steeden]

One could argue that all the contract breaking and whatnot that's happened this off-season is directly in the 'spirit of the game' given that the code itself was forged on players breaking their agreements with their RU clubs to form a breakaway. Same could even be said for the SL war.

It would be a poorly-made argument.

 

[madunit]

The split in 1895, it was the beginning of an evolutionary process that turned a turgid boring sport into a fast paced hard hitting spectacle that rugby league is today. The fact we have never been afraid to change and adapt, not always for the better, the rules can be traced back to that moment in Huddersfield when the plebeians of the north told the oilks of the south to “get stuffed”. Damn shame we didn’t get Wales and Canada to join us!

Wales were on board.

The Rugby Union there did their best to deny it.

Check out this Doco that was on BBC last year:

 

[madunit]

It would be a poorly-made argument.

Not entirely.

Every RL player prior to the breakaway would've had an understanding or agreed in some sense that they were not to be paid for playing Rugby.

They broke that rule to play RL.

I don't think any of those players get the credit they deserve for making such ballsy decisions, especially in light of the fact that Australian RL very nearly died midway through the 1909 season.

 

[Timmah]

It would be a poorly-made argument.

Union players who'd signed contracts not to play for money broke them to form the professional code.

Today plenty of fans and pundits take aim at players who break contract, suggesting it's not in the spirit of the game - despite that being an element of the birth of rugby league.

 

[The Book of Steeden]

You’re right. Can hardly spot the difference between compensation for survival vs Super League.

 

[madunit]

You’re right. Can hardly spot the difference between compensation for survival vs Super League.

The Wallabies coup in 1909 was very Super League like.

Big money used to attract stars to jump to the rival code.

Without that coup, Rugby League may well have died in 1909 in Australia.

Don't be so closed minded. You can have a debate without being childish.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

One could argue that all the contract breaking and whatnot that's happened this off-season is directly in the 'spirit of the game' given that the code itself was forged on players breaking their agreements with their RU clubs to form a breakaway. Same could even be said for the SL war.

I really love this idea...

It is funny that any "real" RL fan knows that SL was the bad guys and ARL were the heros. Yet the actual SL rebellion was almost an exact recreation of the original formation of NU.

It would be a poorly-made argument.

Why not?

Clubs protest conditions and form rebel league. Players jump on for money/conditions.

What is different other than your own personal loyalties?

 

[T-Boon]

One difference between SL and the birth of professional Rugby (RL) is that whilst the core motive for RL was money, they also had in mind improving the ugliness of the game of Rugby so that it was better to watch.
SL was purely about the money. Arguable SL made the game uglier to watch.

I think the spirit of RL is about rule changes to make it more spectator friendly (eg open, lots of passing etc) and less like Rugby. They have really moved away from that and we need to go back to thinking about the rules and changing them so that the establishment like Bellamy have less control.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The split in 1895, it was the beginning of an evolutionary process that turned a turgid boring sport into a fast paced hard hitting spectacle that rugby league is today. The fact we have never been afraid to change and adapt, not always for the better, the rules can be traced back to that moment in Huddersfield when the plebeians of the north told the oilks of the south to “get stuffed”. Damn shame we didn’t get Wales and Canada to join us!

Losing Canada was clearly just because the RFL never thought to tour in North America (or just didnt think it would be worth the effort), which seems insane even for the time. The CFL were getting decent crowds and the trip would have been a WHOLE lot shorter than going to Australia/NZ. I really just cannot explain this one...

As for Wales (after watching the video) i sort of get it. What we needed was for full clubs to come over, not just players. Fan loyalty is to the club, so if players just jump ship and for new teams, they are hated. NU was not actively pushing for the Welsh clubs to come over (i think they had other things to worry about and they were benefiting for the Welsh players joining the NU clubs).

Youre right though. Bloody shame!!

 

[mave]

Why not?

Clubs protest conditions and form rebel league. Players jump on for money/conditions.

What is different other than your own personal loyalties?

I think the difference is that most of us here lived through the SL War, saw the spitefulness, saw the game ripped apart, etc, etc.

No-one here could say the same about the original split.

 

[The Book of Steeden]

One difference between SL and the birth of professional Rugby (RL) is that whilst the core motive for RL was money, they also had in mind improving the ugliness of the game of Rugby so that it was better to watch.
SL was purely about the money. Arguable SL made the game uglier to watch.

I think the spirit of RL is about rule changes to make it more spectator friendly (eg open, lots of passing etc) and less like Rugby. They have really moved away from that and we need to go back to thinking about the rules and changing them so that the establishment like Bellamy have less control.

Purely about greed, is the falldown of any counter-argument.

It was solely greed which drove Super League.

 

[T-Boon]

Purely about greed, is the falldown of any counter-argument.

It was solely greed which drove Super League.

Exactly. As I understand it, the RL forefathers were motivated by cash but also correcting what they thought were stupid aspects of rugby such as the ball being locked up in a ruck for most of the game. The game is kind of going back that way with wrestling.

 

[El Diablo]

 

[madunit]

Exactly. As I understand it, the RL forefathers were motivated by cash but also correcting what they thought were stupid aspects of rugby such as the ball being locked up in a ruck for most of the game. The game is kind of going back that way with wrestling.

In Australia, they were motivated by fairness. Hoyle, the first President was a Unionist and a Labor Politician. He made no money from the game. Nor did Giltinan or Trumper.

The players didn't earn much at all either.

The first well paid players were the 1909 Wallabies.

 

[unforgiven]

Purely about greed, is the falldown of any counter-argument.

It was solely greed which drove Super League.

I was against Super League, but that point can be argued. You can argue that by underselling the television rights to Packer that the ARL were denying the players their fair share of the money the game was producing.