Why do people call RU, 'rugby'??

[Te Kaha]

Both evolved along different paths after a split in governing bodies. Neither union nor rugby have a greater claim to the word "rugby"

You keep saying it... but clear historical evidence shows you are wrong.. ther was no "Split" in governing bodies, only a breakaway. the original governing body remained, hence the first claim to the name "Rugby"

 

[Paley]

You keep saying it... but clear historical evidence shows you are wrong.. ther was no "Split" in governing bodies, only a breakaway. the original governing body remained, hence the first claim to the name "Rugby"

For some reason best known to yourself you seem unwilling to bring facts into this conversation. For 100 years the IRB had a policy that anybody who played professional rugby or played rugby for a club belonging to a governing body which also oversaw professional rugby was banned from playing rugby union - that professional rugby was the rugby known as rugby league - so you see the IRB and the associated unions merely saw rugby league as a split of governing bodies. Since union has become openly professional it is true that many in union are attempting to claim sole ownership of the word "rugby" but that is just the natural hypocrisy which comes so easily to those tainted by the kicking code.

 

[Thomas]

Has "rugby union" changed its name since the split? What about the code that split away? Did they change their name?

 

[Te Kaha]

For some reason best known to yourself you seem unwilling to bring facts into this conversation. For 100 years the IRB had a policy that anybody who played professional rugby or played rugby for a club belonging to a governing body which also oversaw professional rugby was banned from playing rugby union - that professional rugby was the rugby known as rugby league - so you see the IRB and the associated unions merely saw rugby league as a split of governing bodies. Since union has become openly professional it is true that many in union are attempting to claim sole ownership of the word "rugby" but that is just the natural hypocrisy which comes so easily to those tainted by the kicking code.

Again you post complete bullsh*t... As i have previously said, Rugby League IS Still Rugby. Therfore the fact players were banned is irrelevant. League split off from its "parent" and set up its own code. THAT was the birth of Rugby League... Most if not all League historians agree with this.
The RFU, who were the "parent" body are STILL in existance. the game they govern, was called Rugby and still is.. there was no split.. the RFU and by extension the IRB govern the SAME game since it was codeified...

Therefore they have the first right to the name Rugby. They dont have the sole right, but they do have the first right.

 

[Paley]

Again you post complete bullsh*t... As i have previously said, Rugby League IS Still Rugby. Therfore the fact players were banned is irrelevant. League split off from its "parent" and set up its own code. THAT was the birth of Rugby League... Most if not all League historians agree with this.
The RFU, who were the "parent" body are STILL in existance. the game they govern, was called Rugby and still is.. there was no split.. the RFU and by extension the IRB govern the SAME game since it was codeified...

Therefore they have the first right to the name Rugby. They dont have the sole right, but they do have the first right.

The clubs which split and formed the northern union were rugby clubs before the split and continued to be rugby clubs after the split. It was a split of governing bodies which eventually evolved the game along seperate lines, that is all. The RFU aren't the parent body.

 

[Te Kaha]

The clubs which split and formed the northern union were rugby clubs before the split and continued to be rugby clubs after the split. It was a split of governing bodies which eventually evolved the game along seperate lines, that is all. The RFU aren't the parent body.

According to that theory, then any League club formed after the original split cant be a "Rugby" club...

The RFU is the ORIGINAL body and by extension the IRB,.. that is the part that you cant seem to understand... it hasnt changed.. it was the First to use Rugby, it is still in existance therefore it has first claim.
After the split, the new clubs were part of a NEW governing body, they codeified a NEW sport. The fact they still played the same game is irrelevant. the game that has now evolved into Rugby League had its birth in 1895... it was not first and therfore cannot have first claim.

 

[Goldfields_Titans]

You grab onto something on a website and dont let it go... doesnt make you right...

What is the LEGAL name of the game? the one used in the ALL the IRBs legal and finncial documents?? its either "Rugby" or "Rugby Football".. that is the games LEGAL name... got it dumbarse.

Your name is henceforth "Gaylord f**kwit"... it might not be your legal name, but under your reasoning since its on a website it must be true.

You're great at dishing out the insults aren't you big fella yet whinge like a sook when you have been well and truly owned.....no wonder your countrymen are getting out of NZ and taking up OUR jobs in WA!

 

[Goldfields_Titans]

The George Hotel in Huddersfield is commonly known as the 'birthplace of rugby league'

This implies that a new sport was 'born' in 1895, does it not?

Here thus lieth the clue: the "new sport" as thou calleth it containeth the name RUGBY.

If it was a new sport then the word RUGBY would be irrelevant! Try again knumbhead. :crazy:

 

[Te Kaha]

You're great at dishing out the insults aren't you big fella yet whinge like a sook when you have been well and truly owned.....no wonder your countrymen are getting out of NZ and taking up OUR jobs in WA!

Owned??? what are you 12???? the only person having a "whinge and sook" is you... so much so you send abusive PMs to other members... how lame are you...

Here thus lieth the clue: the "new sport" as thou calleth it containeth the name RUGBY.

If it was a new sport then the word RUGBY would be irrelevant! Try again knumbhead. :crazy:

You seem to have a lisp there... or are you not taking your meds???

Are you now saying that League and Rugby are the same sport?? and its just a big con that they have different rules and governing bodies???... you really are soooooooooo dumb.

 

[Paley]

According to that theory, then any League club formed after the original split cant be a "Rugby" club...

The RFU is the ORIGINAL body and by extension the IRB,.. that is the part that you cant seem to understand... it hasnt changed.. it was the First to use Rugby, it is still in existance therefore it has first claim.
After the split, the new clubs were part of a NEW governing body, they codeified a NEW sport. The fact they still played the same game is irrelevant. the game that has now evolved into Rugby League had its birth in 1895... it was not first and therfore cannot have first claim.

As rugby league is still rugby any club formed sine the split is a rugby club. The RFU don't play the same rules as originally codified at rugby school in fact when the original rugby clubs (such as Bradford in 1863) formed they often played 20 a side or even 30 a side. How can something which was identical to the code played by the RFU be born? A new governing body was created, that's all - the game they played was the same although the seperate governing bodies evolved the game along different lines. That is just an immutable fact.

 

[Te Kaha]

As rugby league is still rugby any club formed sine the split is a rugby club. The RFU don't play the same rules as originally codified at rugby school in fact when the original rugby clubs (such as Bradford in 1863) formed they often played 20 a side or even 30 a side. How can something which was identical to the code played by the RFU be born? A new governing body was created, that's all - the game they played was the same although the seperate governing bodies evolved the game along different lines. That is just an immutable fact.

And you bypass the FACT that ORIGINAL governing body still exists. it was the first to use the name Rugby Football and still has first rights to it... any new body does not.

 

[Timbo]

This is easily the most absurd thread in the history of this forum. And that's saying something.

 

[Thomas]

This is easily the most absurd thread in the history of this forum. And that's saying something.

It sure is. We have some deadsh*t telling people what to call their sport and a kiwi arguing with possibly the most stubborn Englishman ever.

When Paley dies his tombstone will read "Rugby League is Rugby, you bastards!"

 

[Paley]

And you bypass the FACT that ORIGINAL governing body still exists. it was the first to use the name Rugby Football and still has first rights to it... any new body does not.

The term rugby football was used long before the RFU or the IRB came into existence

 

[Jesbass]

It sure is. We have some deadsh*t telling people what to call their sport and a kiwi arguing with possibly the most stubborn Englishman ever.

When Paley dies his tombstone will read "Rugby League is Rugby, you bastards!"

I've been reading this thread for days, hoping to find the answer to my one burning question, but it seems forever elusive.

That question is: "Who cares?"

One could argue that by reading the thread, I am the answer to my very question, but rather my reading has been in sheer bemusement at the stubbornness and doggedness of the two proponents who are repeatedly butting heads on such a meaningless discussion.

Perhaps it would be best if I were to reword my question as such: "What does it matter?"

 

[adamkungl]

Gotta agree. Lame thread. They are both forms of Rugby. Neither are the exact same game as when the split occured. Both can use the name Rugby, RL usually chooses to differentiate itself. What's the big deal?

 

[Te Kaha]

The term rugby football was used long before the RFU or the IRB came into existence

And which was hte ifrst governing body of "Rugby Football"?

I've been reading this thread for days, hoping to find the answer to my one burning question, but it seems forever elusive.

That question is: "Who cares?"

One could argue that by reading the thread, I am the answer to my very question, but rather my reading has been in sheer bemusement at the stubbornness and doggedness of the two proponents who are repeatedly butting heads on such a meaningless discussion.

Perhaps it would be best if I were to reword my question as such: "What does it matter?"

Of course it doesnt matter... its the internet!! nobody is going to change their opinon of what to call a sport/code because of a message board thread... but hey... its the offseason.

Gotta agree. Lame thread. They are both forms of Rugby. Neither are the exact same game as when the split occured. Both can use the name Rugby, RL usually chooses to differentiate itself. What's the big deal?

Exactly!

 

[Jesbass]

Of course it doesnt matter... its the internet!! nobody is going to change their opinon of what to call a sport/code because of a message board thread... but hey... its the offseason.

That was the most enjoyable post of the thread to date, methinks!

 

[Paley]

And which was hte (sic) ifrst (sic) governing body of "Rugby Football"?

The pupils at Rugby School. Quite a few clubs were formed before the RFU were formed.

 

[Te Kaha]

The pupils at Rugby School. Quite a few clubs were formed before the RFU were formed.

Dont talk bullsh*t.. the pupils arent a governing body... and who governed the clubs??

Its a simple question.. even for you.. what was the first governing body for codefied "Rugby Football"?