Talk:Rugby union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rugby union article.
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Everydaylife.
Wikiproject Rugby union
 Rugby union is part of WikiProject Rugby union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to Rugby union. If you would like to participate, you can edit Rugby union, or visit the project page, where you can join by adding your name to participants list.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article was the WikiProject Rugby union collaboration of the fortnight (27 Feb 06 - 23 April 06). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.
Peer review Rugby union has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
To-do list for Rugby union: edit · history · watch · refresh

Suggestions and tasks for the page to assist for the duration its COTF.

  • Write about field size/markings/grass type/stadiums?
    • Create image of field w/ markings etc
    • Some more images of games?
  • Section on popularity?
Mentioned, no exact figures. - see added remark on popularity in the introductary section
  • References and footnotes where appropriate
  • Longer intro
  • Inline Citation
  • Section on attire:jersey(see also: Rugby shirt)/equip(boots, use of gloves, kicking tees)
  • Small paragraph on IRB's proposed law changes taking place in South Africa
Please add to and edit this list, strike out completed tasks

Anyone agree with me that that's Jonny Wilkinson getting tackled in the picture at the top? Should the caption be changed? -Zsig

Oh, my aching sides...
actually, thinking about it, that one is quite funny. Hig Hertenfleurst 20:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Need cite for that quote

There's nothing about the lions team (england, wales, ireland,scotland) touring in the south hemisphere. Also, it seems to me that the hooker has the number 1 in the team. LdM

Not according to the IRB. Where do you come from? There are some variations in the number scheme but I've not come across that one before.GordyB 10:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page really needs an explanation of the different rugby positions (tighthead prop, fly-half etc) and some introduction to the rules(!). cferrero I merged two such paragraphs and moved the data to the specialist article which has potential but needs work. Some of the info e.g. alternate names for positions now only exists on that page as it was too detailed for this page.GordyB 18:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I changed "football" in this article to "soccer" due to rugby itself beging called "football" in its dominant areas (such as East Coast Australia and New Zealand). However, it appears this edit was reverted by User:Mintguy. On reflection, it is probably best to disambiguate better within the article than to choose one word over the other. However, in lieu of any explanation from Mintguy, I am left wondering as to why this has occured. Would anyone like to discuss this matter? - Mark 09:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There were two other references to association football in this article a single change to soccer was inconsistent, however, after making the edit and then reflecting on it, I was going to change it back from simply football to 'association football', but I'm having trouble with my monitor at the moment, whereby it cuts out when it overheats, and it did so at that moment. So I'll make the change now. Also this article needs a rewrite from the top because the first paragraph is completely wrong, association football didn't exist in Webb-Ellis's time, and it is now generally accepted that the story is a complete myth anyway see William Webb-Ellis. With my monitor trouble I'm not currently making major edits to articles. Mintguy (T) 16:34, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I added a para to the description of the tackle before i had registered. I am now not sure that the description should be here or in the ruck and maul sections. There are one or two other things I will have a look at given the time in the next few days. All in all though, a good stab at explaining the peculiarities of the game. Casualobserver 14:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Tackle and the requirement for stationary

It is not a requirement that a tackled player be held stationary, nor that a player be held stationery before a maul commences, so I removed the references to this put in by moriori. dlt104

And I put them back. It is most definitely a requirement that a player is not tackled until he is stationary. Any player tackled before the tryline, but who still has momentum -- in other words is still moving and therefore is NOT stationary -- can slide over the line or reach out over the line to score a try. Players who have been flattened on the ground by a tackler, but who still have momentum and have not become stationary, can and do play on in all phases of play. Often. Moriori 08:32, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to argue, but having been a Society referee for the past 5 years I can state absolutely categorically that there is NO requirement for a player to be stationary before he is deemed to be tackled - check the lawbook. The only requirement is that the player be brought to ground and held. The momentum to which you refer is a specific exemption under Law 15.6(f). Players who are tackled, and not within reach of the goal-line, even if sliding, MUST comply with law. They may indeed not do so, but referees are liable to penalise them. This may seem an esoteric point, but if the reference to stationary remains then it will mislead readers as to what the Law actually says - and definatley does NOT require a player to be stationary before the tackle is deemed complete.

could someone add some stuff on turnovers?

[edit] Title Incorrect ?

Surely the title of this article should be "Rugby Union", not "Rugby union"? e.g. see first paragraph at the Website of the International Rugby Board, the official international governing body for the sport. It seems that a "Rugby Union" redirect page was created by User:Duncharris; - why was this article not renamed? --User:lolar 01:02, 9 Mar 2005

Because Duncharris is a prominent anti-capitalist. ;-) Chris 15:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It would seem wrong to write about Cricket, Table Tennis etc. I think that rugby union is the best way of writing it, consistent with other sports. Grinner 14:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
It shoudl be written Rugby Union in the title because its a TITLE! First letters of significant words are always capitalised in a title --Seb Belcher 22:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was under "Rugby Union" it was moved by Duncharris to Rugby union. Is he a league supporter? If you do not like the title it can be moved backPhilip Baird Shearer 08:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

What do Duncharris's opinion of rugby league have to with this? By naming the sport without capitals it allows us to distinguish between the sport (rugby union) and an organisation (Rugby Union). Same for rugby league. We should treat both codes the same, whatever. Grinner 10:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

If one has a tradition of using capitals and the other not, why do they have to be the same? BTW which organisation is called "Rugby Union"? Philip Baird Shearer 13:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe it refers to the Rugby Football Union (or indeed any other national union), which I have heard quite frequently shortened to 'the Rugby Union'. (edit) The game of rugby union is administered by Rugby Unions, as the game of association football is administered by Football Associations. Hig Hertenfleurst 16:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Rugby league does have a tradition of using capitals (Rugby League). One might say that this helps distinguish between Rugby League and a Rugby league. But I agree with Grinner, whichever is chosen for one should be used for the other. Peronally I prefered 'Rugby union' since a lot of articles already have union with a small 'u' in the title.GordyB 21:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think people are confusion "rubgy union" (the sport - similar in capitalization to "soccer" or "ping pong") with a "Rugby Union" (a federation for organising games, tournaments and leagues playing the sport "rugby union" - for example, the English "Rugby Football Union", or the Welsh "Welsh Rugby Union"). The title is correct as it stands. Misterpurple 17:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby Union is a NAME

Would any American write George bush?

Then why has this ludicrous naming concept been applied so that Rugby Union became categorised as Rugby union? Same thing. Rugby Union is the NAME of the sport and both words start with a capital letter. --Jack 21:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • George Bush is a proper noun, and rugby union isn't. Rugby union is the name of a sport. It's not "I like playing Cricket and Swimming on the weekend" is it? Maybe I'm wrong, but we need to sort this out.--Commander Keane 06:56, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I see nothing wrong with the sentence (apart from my spelling mistakes) "I like playing Rugby Union". I see "Rugby Union" as the name for the sport. The same with "Rugby League". The problem is, we've already put substantial effort into making things "rugby union" and "rugby league". But I'll admit, capitals do seem far more intuitive! POds 09:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll accept that both words should be lower case in mid-sentence: e.g., "Martin Johnson was a rugby union player" but if the sentence begins with the sport's name or if it is in a title, both words should begin with capitals. To have "Rugby union" as a title is just plain daft.--Jack 22:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Have you had a look at MoS:Naming? Admittedly, it doesn't really help me figure what we need to do for Rugby Union/Rugby union. --Commander Keane 10:34, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

See discussion in section above.GordyB 12:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should we include a player positions diagram in this article?

There seems to be a little edit skirmish developing about whether to include a player positions digram here. I can't find any debate about this, so I am starting one now before things get nasty. --Etimbo | Talk 12:14, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is what the article looks like with a player positions diagram: [1]

This is what the article looks like without a player positions diagram: [2] --Etimbo | Talk 20:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Include a player positions diagram in this article

Rls 17:25, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC) I think the diagran serves as a useful overview to player positions in Rugby Union which is pretty integral to the sport and should not be relegated to the secondary article.

Because a rugby team is divided into two halves (forwards and backs), and therefore is dissimilar to many more traditional sports positions, there should be a diagram to explain this. Also, a diagram would help a reader unfamiliar with the game to understand the way the "don't pass forward" rule works. Misterpurple 19:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not include a player positions diagram in this article

--Etimbo | Talk 11:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) I think it clutters up the article.

[edit] Related debate

There is a related debate about whether to have a template of player positions. Such a template could be useful if each position were given its own article. --Etimbo | Talk 19:44, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The debate is at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion.GordyB 12:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of that debate, there is still a question as to whether this article should carry the diagram. Rls 17:25, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
I agree, the debate here is about whether to include player positions, not whether there should be a template. --Etimbo | Talk
The two are interrelated. If we decide to get rid of player positions then it has the knock-on effect of questioning whether the template is useful. It looks like the whole debate is going to get messy as there are so many issues that on the face of it are independent but are connected template or not template, player postions in the main article or not or articles dedicated to specific positions etc. Personally I like the status quo for this page.GordyB 22:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There are only two debates and four possible outcomes, so I don't see how it can get all that messy (unless there are other debates going on).
  1. Include player positions diagram in this article, keep template
  2. Include player positions diagram in this article, ditch the template
  3. Do not include player positions diagram in this article, keep template (presumably for use elsewhere)
  4. Do not include player positions diagram in this article, ditch the template
--Etimbo | Talk 09:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not Rugby union positions is split into seperate articles very much affects 2,3&4.GordyB 12:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tackle & Release

1st para: a tackled player is only required to release the ball if grounded. In a maul, the tackled player is permitted to continue carrying the ball.

A pedant writes : A player who is in a maul is on his feet, and a player on his feet has not been tackled. In Law, tackled implies grounded -- GWO

[edit] Disorganised

The information on the page is good but it's jumbled and loosely kept together. I am concerned that there seems to be a section high up on the page which appears to be the 'Rules' of rugby, if that is the intention of the section then it is severely lacking, there are some VERY important points missing. The official rules of rugby union is a document over 150 pages long, it simply can't be abbreviated in this manner. The problem is that the list contains very specific explanations of certain aspects, i.e. Ruck, Mauls, Scrums and Line-outs but says nothing about Marks, penalties, offsides, dead balls etc. To a person wanting to learn about the technicalities of rugby this would be a misleading introduction.

[edit] Organisation for the Rugby Union section of Wiki

Obviously Rugby union is far too big a topic to fit onto one page if you want to do anything more than simply scratch the surface. I feel we need to break down the topic into several sub-articles and keep the main page short, infomative and objective with links off to the relevent sub-articles which go into more detail. Ideas for sub-articles:

RulesLaws (official ones)

Team positions and responsibilities

Info about tournaments, leagues etc.

Glossary (technical) scrum, ruck, maul, mark, lineout etc.

Glossary (tactical/player slang) up & under, hangtime, dump tackle, zig-zag etc.

History of the game

Rugby Sevens

Please do not make wholesale changes to articles like this without discussing it first. There may need to be changes made to the structure but you should not delete other people's work like this without a discussion. Also can you sign your posts in the discussion section using four '~' symbols.GordyB 10:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What you have reverted it to was not even what it was when I edited it, when I came accross this page yesterday it was a 1/4 of the length it was now and written in a distinctly amateur fashion, all I did was alter the initial paragraph of the article, which isn't even on this version, I edited it in good faith and deleted nothing, check the updates before accusing me of such. Even what it is reverted to now I find problems with. Firstly the image, you can barely make out the players on the pitch, it in no way helps you understand how the game is played or what a game is like. Then by the second paragraph it gets immediately bogged down with the whole shamateurism issue, which asside from being very much in the past is not a very likely reason that a person would type 'Rugby Union' into an encyclopaedia, it's certainly not introductory paragraph stuff. Seb Belcher 14:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay if it was not you that vandalised the page that's different. If it happens in future check to see if the older version is better. Sorry for any accusation.

I agree with you re: the picture. The shamateurism thing could be moved to the history paragraph.GordyB 15:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Product "placement"

I hope Gilbert made a decent donation to wikipedia in return for the prominent advertising of their product at top left of article. Nurg 12:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The picture is courtesy of Seb Belcher who also provided the other picture. I think it is extremely unlikely that he is an employee of Gilbert.GordyB 22:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If there used to be a picture of a rugby ball, it might be a good idea to reinstate it for those who don't know what a 'prolate spheroid' looks like. Me, for example.Harry R 14:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morgan Turinui

An article on this chap is now in VfD, anyone care too look and input on discussion, please see Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Morgan Turinui. Alf 12:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Welsh Cup

I've put this up for deletion. There have only been a couple of votes so far from non-regular contributors. Please vote.GordyB 11:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union

Came across this today. I'm only the third member. Regular contributors might want to think about signing up.GordyB 17:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There are now 13 members and the project is coming along nicely. Still room for more particpants.GordyB 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing

I had a skim through this and other articles when I wanted to wikilink the word "citing" in an article. I can't find anything on Wikipedia about this, nor much about refereeing. I have just glossed the term in the article for now ("ie, reported following a game for events during it"), but if there is something I can link to, so much the better. Anyone happen to know? (Btw, if the rugby union portal is a better place to ask, just let me know, and I'll go there instead.) --Telsa ((t)(c)) 17:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't come across an article on citing but it is overdue. PS: there is no Rugby Union portal as yet though it is being discussed so this is as good a place as any. Wikilink the word 'citing' and sooner or later an article will get written.GordyB 22:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Okey-doke, thanks. --Telsa ((t)(c)) 23:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

I think the history of Rugby should be moved up in this article (and probably shortened a bit). I also think that the introduction should be more general (ie without references to forward passing etc). I'm just going to make a few changes - I'm not generally involved in this article, so I'm mentioning it here so that, if you disagree, we can discuss it. Cheers. Cormaggio @ 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Base article on cricket

It probably the benchmark sports article on wiki!--HamedogTalk|@ 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Great edits Hamedog, you made a huge improvement. I also shuffled some things around to try and replicate the look of the Cricket article. By the way, I removed two images, the field (reading disclaimers on official RU sites, its probably not the best idea to use their images) and the ball (claimed as Copyright but free to use, but I dont think it was an appropriate tag). But yeah, great contributions! Forever young 09:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby union competitions

At present I think too many competitions are listed. I propose deleting the section on Rugby Sevens competitions as this is not an article on Rugby Sevens. I also think those currently listed under 'Other tournaments' should go. Two of these are youth tournaments and I don't think we should list them here for reasons of space (otherwise another ten or so articles will end up here) and the other is a tournment which is notable only because the particpants are gay. I don't think it is well known enough to warrant inclusion. Thoughts please.GordyB 14:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe have link somewhere, possibly in the see also section, to a list of rugby competitions. It will remove the lists from rugby union. --HamedogTalk|@ 14:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well would it be possible to create a main article on Rugby union competitions/tournaments? Right now, its really just a list, something that will be frowned upon if it were to be an FAC. How about we write maybe two paragraphs, that talk about;
  • Competition structure, and its variants. e.g knock-out, qualification etc etc
  • Levels. National , special , Club, province, sevens, schools, schoolboys etc etc.
    • Mention of three major competitions, RWC, 6N and TS
    • Mention S14 and Hein.Cup/Guin.Prem/whatever
    • Save everything else for main article...
  • Importance. RWC as career highlight(?), stuff like that. (What about the lions for british players? --HamedogTalk|@ 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

The section there at present could become the structure of the Main Article. I don't know, just an idea, it could be more educational than what is currently there...? Forever young 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've decided that we should make a main article. At present it takes up too much space abd is a list not a discussion. I'm going to start the main article as a 'List of' though if anybody wants to change that they can. There are some more tournaments that probably deserve a paragraph or two in this article but we can sort this out later.GordyB 14:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Surely Summer and Autumn internationals should be called something else. I know that in NZ the 'Autumn' internationals are called the end-of-year tours. I say this as the 'Autumn' tests are in the Spring in the southern hemisphere and the 'summer' ones are in the winter? Shouldn't this be changed? - Shudda talk 02:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Matches played in the NH, in the NH Autumn, usually against touring SH sides do get called "Autmun International Series." I agree that the name is sub-optimal :) It makes no sense whatsoever to call NH Summer tours into a SH winter season "summer tours". "End of season tours" sounds like a good catch all... -- GWO
Even calling them end of season tours may not be the best option. I was thinking mid-year and end-of-year? The calender we all use is the same even if our seasons (in both senses) are not. - Shudda talk 22:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I thought that the backs were called "the girls".... Cheers!--Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Nomination for Featured Article Status

Yes, it is a long shot. The reason I've nominated this article is because we do have the content. Hopefully we will get enough feedback on why we shouldn't be a FA that we can retool the article and bring it to FA status.

Rowlan 06:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to go through peer review before being a featured article candidate. I lurk on both WP:PR and WP:FAC and I can tell you already what they'll say. There will be questions about the licensing of some of the images: one of them is noted as "free use, came from flickr", two others have a tag on them which has expired, and a fourth is "believed to be" okay to use. Copyediting will come up. Someone will want more references, and this will then degenerate into a row about whether footnotes are necessary and in what style they should be. On content: we don't have much about how many people watch it (in person or on telly) and in particular how many play in local clubs. It's all about the professional game. I think that's a pity. Something about what typical membership means would be good: how often is there training or a game? Culture (or lack of it, in the eyes of some!) -- is the "posh game" thing restricted to England? How many play/support it? Supporters mixing and drinking with each other instead of fighting each other. The whole drinking/touring aspect. What goes on tour stays on tour? I realise those are all somewhat UK-based perceptions. It would be lovely to have information about the game and its position in some of the other nations. Romania or Japan, say. Back to PR. Someone will pick holes in grammar and find at least one run-on sentence. Finally, when we have addressed all that, someone will then say "what a lot of changes, I don't think this article can be considered stable". Argh. :)
Erm, well, okay, perhaps not all of those, but at least some! I do think we have scope for something about playing/supporting it in the leagues that don't get televised, at a minimum.
Telsa (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
'Posh game' is not something restricted to England. Rugby union is a mass game only in a few places e.g. Wales, NZ, Pacific Islands and certain areas e.g. Limerick in Ireland. Eventually there will be Rugby union in x articles that will tackle the social dimension in each country. Rugby union in Wales is the only such article at present, the league section is much more developed in this aspect. Rugby league in England, Rugby league in Australia, Rugby league in Wales, Rugby league in New Zealand show what is possible.
I think there is an article on 'rugby culture' somewhere that probably should be linked.GordyB 10:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, yeah, some of those are exactly what I mean. I should have searched better. Thanks!Telsa (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Also found the Rugby culture article, it is currently on POD's sandboxUser:POds/Sandbox/Rugby culture. It is currently rather POV at the moment though.GordyB 11:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

There has to be a better 'intro' photo than the one on there now with the scrum-half dive pass. It does not capture the extent of the sport at all really. If I've never heard of the game of rugby in any way, and someone gave me this picture and told me that 'this is rugby', I wouldn't hardly have any idea what it's about at all. The composition of the photo, the spectator legs and the crowd control rope that bisects the entire picture, is rediculous. Essentially two players pictured? Why? Just not a lot of thought put into that one. The burnt grass and Will Carling and his wife on the picnic blanket? Simply rediculous.

Some of the images people are putting in are very questionable. We also do not need to flood the article with images either. You cannot just upload any image and say it is 'promotional material' or 'public domain'.

I also removed the scrum and line-out images as they can be displayed in their respective main-articles.

Also, the RWC Cup image may also be questionable in terms of fair-use.

Cvene64Forever Young 04:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the RWC Cup image may also be questionable in terms of fair-use. We actually have permission to use that image from the copyright owner, I emailed him who said it was alright.--HamedogTalk|@ 08:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah good. Thats a really good image as well. Cvene64 10:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The images that were uploaded were promotional, both from my univ. RFC and the World Cup. I believe that the pictures should be included. Having played the game I have seen the set pieces as well as breakdowns, etc. However, those who may be coming here to gain information, may not have. I say put the photos back in. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 13:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the Maul one back in, but can you provide the details on the image page of its location/licensing. Its a fantastic image, and contributes to the article a lot, it just needed the info on the image page. And what about the international photo, how/where is that promotional? Cheers.Cvene64 08:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In my admittedly biased opinion, there are some nice shots of Line Outs at Line-out. GWO

[edit] My comments on WP:FAC

My response to the FAC nomination included some questions that came to me as I read the article. I've reproduced my comments below:

Object. Remember that a lot of people who use the English-language Wikipedia are Americans who most likely have never seen a rugby match. Try to put yourself in their shoes, turning on the international-sports channel and seeing a bunch of people seemingly running into each other aimlessly. Here are some specific things you should take note of:

  • You should include something about strategy in the article. If you get 5 points for a try and only 3 for a penalty or drop goal, why do teams ever kick penalty or drop goals? And why do they kick the ball out of bounds so much?
  • Is the 22-meter drop-out a drop kick? And who kicks the 22-meter drop out: the team that grounded the ball in the in-goal area or the team that kicked it there?

* You say the opposition cannot touch the ball in a ruck, but it appears the team can heel the ball. Do you mean they can't touch it with their hands? * "Referees generally call scrums for knock-ons, where a player drops the ball forwards, a forward pass, or for other accidental infringements" -- does that mean that a knock-on is "when the player drops the ball forwards," or are those two different offenses? If the latter is the case, what's a knock-on?

  • Shouldn't the "sin bin" be mentioned?

* You need to define what a scrum is, even though there is an article that gives more info on it.

  • Do rugby teams have set plays in which they plan who's going to pass the ball to whom and where, like in American football, or is it all spontaneous?
    • Good question. The answer is "Yes, sometimes". There's more spontaeity than the NFL, because there are fewer stoppages from which to reset, but the #9 and #10 will often call a set move for their backs. Of course, while decoy runners are allowed, there's no legal blocking, so the number of possible permutations is cut down, and a set move will be limited to saying which player will try and break the defence, and what line he'll be running at the time (or, perhaps, to let the runners know there's going to be a kick to chase). Line-outs will also pre-planned moves as to who's going to move where, and where the ball is going to.
      • Thanks. I think there ought to be a strategy section to explain things like this. When I've seen rugby on TV, it always looks like there must be some arrangement beforehand as to who's going to go where, because it often appears as if ball-carriers toss the ball without looking to see if someone is there. -- Mwalcoff 23:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Include this image?

.

Should it be anywhere in this article or just in line-out?--HamedogTalk|@ 02:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be clearer if the images were ordered separated and sequentially, without all the interlocking/overlapping. People don't read sequential information in a clockwise fashion. They read across lines Now it looks like an ugly, unclear montage. -- GWO
Something like this |1|2|3|4|5|, or at worst
|1|2|
|3|4|
|5|

Just adding the point that i altered the caption of the image of David Quinlan and John Clarke making a tackle, as it is Gloucester fullback John Goodridge being tackled, not Terry Fanaloua as it previously said.

[edit] Removal of images

I had to remove the images with the 2.0 CC license, recently found out Wikipedia do not accept them anymore. Cvene64 10:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Times Digital Archive

The times digital archive is available to the general public for the month of April. This allows wikipedia editors and researchers to source some fantastic information on the history of our topics. I have already found various articles of historical significance for rugby league and rugby union, but I suspect there are many more to be found.

I've found articles relating to:

  • The professionalism circular of the RU
  • Reports on the Resolutions of the RU pertaining to professionalism
  • The Banning of huddersfield clubs
  • The introduction/modification of rules to both RU and RL
  • Many Many Many Results (although I did not keep these, they are not my interest)
  • Reports of Rugby league in South Africa
  • A single report on the Rugby league in Italy

And much much more.

[edit] What you must do

  1. Go HERE.
  2. Click on the Thomson Gale Power Search
  3. Click on the "Times Digital Archive" Link under "Aditional Databases"

POds 05:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The rugby union nations

In The rugby union nations section, it says what the different teams are nicknamed. I disagree; the teams, or at least mny of them, are named whatever name is relevant. eg, The Australian Rugby Team are called the wallabies, not nicknamed. √αʑʑρεɾ 03:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you look on the front of match programmes it says "Wales v. Australia", not "Dragons v. Wallabies". They're official nicknames, but they are nicknames... GWO

This needs to be sorted one way or another. Jazzper is right - some of these are names more than nicknames. The All Blacks, Springboks and Wallabies, for example, are brand names, while I've never heard anyone refer to the Welsh national team as the Dragons [or to the Japanese as the Cherry Blossoms etc]. The WRU presumably agreed with me when they named one of their regional teams the Dragons. I'll wait for others' input - if nobody objects, 'the Dragons' is getting binned. Hippo43 17:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For a little while at least, Wales had "Dragons" emblazoned on one of their variant kits. An attempt was definitely made to get the brand to stick, but it never did, and was soon abandoned. -- GWO

I've moved this here - [3] Hippo43 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ask to get this page semi-protected to prevent Wales being moved?

Should we ask an admin to semi-protect this page, because their is increasing vandalism via moving Wales around in the lead. --HamedogTalk|@ 04:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that might be a little drastic, I would prefer that whomever keeps changing it would actually say why they think it's not Wales' national sport. It's a bit frustrating to see it always changed without any justification or consultation. - Shudda talk 05:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Talked to user:Jameyb about this on his/her's talk page --HamedogTalk|@ 09:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Sorry Gentlemen (or ladies), as a relatively new user I'm still getting to grips with the etiquette of Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rugby_union&action=edit&section=28

The reason I change it is because it is simply not the case. Rugby Union's status as Wales' "National Sport" is at best debatable and at worst inaccurate.

In terms of attendance figures for the major teams, not one of the Regions (despite playing at the highest levels of their sport) can compete with the crowds for the association football sides playing at a lower level within their respective pyramids. Some league attendances for both Swansea & Cardiff football clubs this season have been greater than for any three of the Rugby regions combined.

Geographically, Rugby Union is vastly more popular in the South Wales valleys than the north of the country, so from a purely geographical sense it is plainly not a national sport. Association football is played (and supported) in every corner of the Principality. Many of the top LOW sides are based in the north of the country as well as the south. There are no north Wales based Rugby teams in the top three tiers of the WRU pyramid.

There are 236 clubs affiliated with the WRU. There are no local amateur league competitions. There are 152 clubs affiliated with the FAW, however this does not take into account local amateur league sides, of which there are forty in the Swansea area alone (not including reserve leagues), not to mention Neath, Wrexham or Cardiff. These are figures obtained from the official sites of both the FAW and WRU.


I'm not saying Rugby isn't popular in Wales, as clearly it is. However, to state that it is the National Sport is not a viewpoint that can be supported by the facts. Attendances for the national team in big games are large, but then so are they for football too, and for a greater range of opposition.

Jameyb

They're all good points. However... I don't think that "National Sport" is synonymous to "most popular", "most participated in" or "most attended". Frankly, unless you've passed a bill through parliament defining it, the phrase "national sport" is pretty meaningless. (Having said that, no other sport has a stronger hold on the national psyche, or as strong a cultural identification, as rugby union.) I think we should strike the "national sport" phrase completely, and go with "very popular in" and "quite popular in" (or synonyms). -- GWO


You're right that "National Sport" is a very hazy definition indeed, although defining a national sport in any way other than most popular with the general public would seem to leave the door open for more debates of this type.

The suggestions you've made are more than acceptable to me. "Major sport in" New Zealand, England, Wales etc etc certainly would clear up the ambiguity.

Jameyb

I agree that popularity doesn't mean it's not the national sport. I've always been under the impression that it's the national sport of Wales and I don't think the attendence debate is very helpful. Soccer has more players here in NZ but it certainly isn't the national sport, the same goes for netball. In Wales rugby draws more attention, press converage then soccer. What I do find kinda interesting is that the wiki page for the Welsh soccer team mentions that it's 'arguably' not even the national sport (when talking about the teams support). I have found several web pages that state rugby is the national sport, most of them are giving general info about Wales, such as [4], [5] and [6]. I googled "Wales 'national sport'" .Anyway, I think that regardless of personal bias on all our parts rugby is almost certainly Wales' national sport.
I've always been under the impression that it's the national sport of Wales -- what does "national sport of Wales" actually mean? -- GWO
"A national sport is a sport or game that is consider to be a culturally intrinsic part of a country or nation." I got that from wikipedia, thats along the lines of what I've said. A national sport is cultural more then anything else. I have found a peer-reviewed, verfifiable paper that states the Welsh national sport is indeed rugby.
Wales' national sport is definitely rugby - Antonio Missiroli, "Culture, Sport, Society", No.1 (Spring 2002). pp.1-20 .
If you disagree please find a credible source rather then continuing on with this debate. - Shudda talk 00:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Chill out. There's no need to cop an attitude. If that's the agreed upon definition of national sport, then I agree with you. I could hardly not, given that I previously wrote
no other sport has a stronger hold on the national psyche, or as strong a cultural identification, as rugby union
-- GWO
I'm not upset, it's just there have been so many rv's and arguments over a point that no one has tried to really find any references on. The first time I reverted Jamey's edit of the Rugby Union page I said leave it as is unless you can reference it. He never did that, but continued to edit it anyway, it's just a little frustrating. - Shudda talk 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WTF is this all about? This article is supposed to be about rugby union - whether it is the 'national sport' of a particular country is both meaningless and irrelevant. The idea of what a 'national sport' is is obviously not something on which there is a consensus, so let's just bin it. The opinion of one guy (Missiroli, who appears to be a specialist in international relations and security policy, not rugby or 'national sports') in a journal article is not a definitive answer on this - it is just one man's opinion. As Jameyb has said, short of an Act of Parliament, there can be no 'right answer'. IMO, Jameyb's argument re football is far more persuasive than Missiroli's statement. The fact that BBC Wales ran a debate on this specific point (http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/mid/sites/sport/pages/talkingpoint_footballvrugby.shtml) shows clearly that there is no consensus on this, Missiroli's POV aside. Hippo43 11:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets not forget that Missiroli's article was peer-reviewed. If it was a POV statement then the statement would have been corrected prior to publication. It was published in a journal titled 'Culture, Sport, Society' not one on international relations or security policy, so one would expect that whomever reviewed it prior to publication was more qualified then anyone discussing the point here. As for there being no 'right answer' because us lay-people disagree, the reason wiki wants cited references is so that disagreements aren't settled with that kind of response, otherwise half the sites content would be deleted. Please find a peer-reviewed source, BBC-Wales holding a discussion on the issue doesn't mean much really. - Shudda talk 04:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Shudda has provided a peer-reviewed source as a reference. The matter is closed until/unless someone comes up with another peer-reviewed source that takes a different position. Snottygobble 05:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This matter is not closed - although peer-reviewed, Missiroli's view is just an opinion, not a fact. By all means state that some people, Missiroli included, hold the opinion that rugby is the national sport in Wales. It is a fact that he has published an article stating his opinion, backed by his research, but equally it is a fact that many people hold a different opinion. To suggest that rugby has the same popular status in New Zealand and Wales is laughable.Hippo43 15:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


The problem is (as was referred to in that BBC piece), the media situation in Wales is one of overriding bias in favour of Rugby. When you consider, for example, that the head of sport for BBC Wales is Nigel Walker, then you begin to see what football fans are up against in trying to make our voices heard against the closed shop for ex-Rugby players that the Welsh media is. AFAIK it's always been this way, and the willingness of others to jump on the sterotype of the Rugby playing, choir singing miner doesn't help the situation.

The only way to get an accurate overview of the situation is to pull up some figures for yourself. If you're not going to make that decision based on the hard figures of attendances, participants, geographical distribution or whatever it may be, then it can only be based on highly subjective opinion, and therefore unreliable.

The current wording of the article is fine.

Jameyb

The decision is not made by us! Whether it's the national sport, or even what constitutes a national sport is not something we are here to decide. The experts on the matter are the ones who provide the concensus, or have the debate. The problem is that you have not been able to find anything published in the literature that supports what you are saying. If you are going to even say that it's debatable then you need to find a peer reviewed paper where the issue is discussed. As a soccer player I'm not going to let my personal preference influence the fact that no body here has found a peer reviewed article where football (soccer) is stated to be the national sport of Wales, or a paper where rugby's status as Wales' national sport is mentioned as 'arguable'. Wikipedia's policy on this can be found here. Please read it. - Shudda talk 00:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
A single peer reviewed article that mentioned that fact in passing does not constitute conclusive evidence of consensus. Do you really think the reviewers would catch/care about that single reference? The present wording is fine. The debate on the BBC's webpage is equally evidence that its arguable -- hell, you can actual Welsh people actually arguing. As the people of a country have no obvious consensus of opinion, are you really going to say that Missiroli outranks them all simply because he slipped his opinion into a peer-reviewed article? As to policy: Heres a policy for you Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
Rather than nibbling at essentially irrelevant points: let's focus on the real failing of this article : the lack of a section on the tactics of the game. -- GWOe

Shudda, your citation is unsound. You cited "pp 1-20" which implies that there are 20 pages of argument on this when in fact there is only one mention in passing. The title of Missiroli's article, which you also omitted form your citation, is "European Football Cultures and their Integration: The 'Short' Twentieth Century" - again, not specifically on the subject of rugby or national sports. Whether his opinion on Wales' national sport was peer-reviewed is highly questionable. His statement on this subject offers no evidence, no argument, no research, no analysis, no citation and no source in his bibliography - JameyB's opinion above includes some real evidence.

Missiroli is apparently not an expert on this - as far as I can ascertain, his academic credentials (http://www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/europe2001/missiroli.htm) do not appear to include an expertise on Welsh culture, national sports or rugby union. (For wikipedia policy on reliable sources, see WP:Reliable_source)

Your assertion that an academic/expert consensus exists on this, far less a popular consensus, is ridiculous. You found only one very weak passing reference, in a paper on a different subject.

As a sport it clearly doesn't have the same status in Wales as in New Zealand - would the national broadcaster of New Zealand seriously have a public debate on what their national sport is? Rugby union is (at most) arguably Wales' national sport, and that is the wording we should continue to use.Hippo43 15:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


The current wording is fine as far as I'm concerned. I think it's not the national sport, a Rugby fan would say otherwise. "Arguably" is the best way to acknowledge the debate without making a potentially inaccurate statement either way.


Jameyb

I would rather it be changed from arguably to something like considered, I have never heard of soccer even being mentioned as the national sport of Wales. Cvene64 07:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Considered is no good either unless you can show it's a clear majority that considers it to be so. Everything that has been discussed on here clearly indicates that the existence of such a majority is in serious doubt. Indeed, it may be the other way.

Jameyb

Oh please, it is very much a majority. I have never seen anyone/anywhere say anything about soccer being the national sport in Wales. I sense your bias towards soccer is, and you shouldnt bring agendas onto wikipedia, I don't live in Wales (yes, Iam a rugby fan though), but I'm just going off common knowledge, just typing in a combination of national sport.wales.rugby/rugby. national sport. wales bring up numerous matches. Similar googling with football or soccer just brings up fragments, and forum debates. It may be arguable, but whos arguing? Soccer fans, yeah true, but why wouldnt they? It is pretty well established that rugby is the national sport. Cvene64 05:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be arguable, but whos arguing? -- Well there's a BBC Wales page full of Welsh people arguing. I'm not completely convinced of your right to overrule them. -- GWO

I sort of agree with Cvene64 that arguably sounds daft, but considered is still wrong, for all the reasons given at length above. I think it should go back to "...national sport in New Zealand, Fiji, Tonga and Samoa, and is a popular sport in England, Wales, Ireland..."Hippo43 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Cvene64, the media coverage you mention simply does not stand up against the facts as relayed above. It's pretty well established that Columbus discovered America, until you do a little digging for yourself and realise that he was about 400 years too late. Consensus is meaningless without something to justify it, especially when there's a fair bit of evidence to suggest otherwise.

I have done so, and still nobody has come up with facts and figures to provide a counter argument.

Jameyb

It may be arguable, but whos arguing? -- Well there's a BBC Wales page full of Welsh people arguing. I'm not completely convinced of your right to overrule them. -- GWO

Well I'm quite confident I could spark a debate in a forum regarding soccer not being the national sport of England - if so, could I use that as a justification for making appropriate changes on wikipedia? But I guess thats not really the point - anyway I don't mind, as clearly people want it to remain as arguably. Cvene64 12:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National sport and South Africa

In the opening paragraphs it talks about Rugby being the National sport in particular countries and a popular sport in other countries. Im not sure but wouldn't it be fair to say South Africa should be listed under countries where it is a national sport. I know South Africa is very good at many sports but it is a huge game and I am just not sure what would be ahead of it as the most popular sport.--Lummie 03:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the debate we had above on what a 'national sport' is, union may well be the 'national' sport of white South Africans, but there is no way it is the 'national' sport of the non-white majority.Hippo43 09:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the debate on that a national sport is is fundamental to this whole topic. It's a meaningless term for me, so how can people be getting so heated over something they can't even define? Is or isn't what? Some people like rugby, some people don't. Some governments support rugby more than other sports. Try defining 'national sport' before going any further. Greenman 10:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to remove the national sport thing altogether, but clearly some people would insist on, for example, New Zealand, with good reason. As I said above "The idea of what a 'national sport' is is obviously not something on which there is a consensus, so let's just bin it".

When I said "Leaving aside the debate we had above on what a 'national sport' is", I simply meant to cut through all the semantics from the Wales debate. Although nobody has agreed on a definition of 'national sport', by any of the definitions suggested above, or any I can think of, it isn't the national sport of South Africa. .Hippo43 11:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Why don't we just dump the "National Sport" part and just call it "A major Global sport especially popular in" New Zealand, Wales, South Africa etc etc?

There are far too many grey areas and debates available in pretty much every case except for New Zealand when it comes to classing it as a National Sport, so why not just rephrase it altogether and cut out the arguments?

Jameyb

Sounds good to me.Hippo43 17:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too. -- GWO


Job done

Jameyb

[edit] Lines

I am referring to this passage:

Note: in rugby union, unlike association football, the lines bordering the field of play are not completely regarded as out of play. For example, a player standing on but not over the touch line is regarded to be "in touch". Similarly the try line (and the goalposts) are considered part of the in-goal area, so a player may score a try by grounding the ball on the try line (or against the base of one of the posts).

In association football, the lines are part of the field, so the penalty area includes its delimiting lines, and so on.--Semioli 12:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main photo

I don't think the current photo at the top of the page is particularly illustrative of rugby union (I had to look at it twice to realise that it wasn't just a bloke diving). In my opinion a more illustrative photo would be the start of a tackle, with one player clearly in possession, a defender about to make the tackle, and support players from both sides close behind. Even better if players are breaking away from a completed ruck or scrum in the background. Any thoughts? --Mako 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the picture at the moment is very poor with bad composition and too much going on in the background. I'm happy for any team in any competition to be used at the top, providing it's the best quality rugby photo we've got. This is the main page of Rugby Union and the picture at the top needs to be of the highest quality for the article, and essentially the entire WikiProject to be taken seriously. Alexj2002 18:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've decided to be bold, and replaced it. The image it's been replaced with it that of a player being tackled, and the image is not of any major club or country to avoid any accusations of bias. It's a far better photo in my opinion than that which was there previously. Alexj2002 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Mitch119 has reverted to the old one, as the "new picture doesn't differenciate between league and union". I can't see how the old picture differenciates between the two either and I still think it looks awful! Anyway there are some great pictures available on the commons: [7]. Would someone be willing to look through and find a good picture to illustrate the top of the article, which differentiates between Union and League and is as club/country/hemisphere neutral as possible. Alexj2002 16:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red cards

Do people ever get sent off in rugby at all? I've never seen the ref pull out one red card, but I did watch the New Zealand v England match last year where 3 All Blacks got yellow cards in the second half. (And speaking of red cards, I saw the World Cup final - even the bit where Zidane got sent off for headbutting.) Scott Gall 11:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC) PS: And I've also seen that drop-goals are quite rare in both codes these days, hence rugby league scores almost always coming out as even numbers.

  • Yes they do, but are very uncommon. Last one I remember was the England tour of New Zealand in 2004, when Shaw stomped a guys head.--HamedogTalk|@ 11:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Definately some more recent than that. Last one I remember was in the Celtic League last season, Alix Popham got sent off in the last but one game of the season. Alexj2002 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Request

I was wondering if someone could find an image of a staggard (offensive) back line waiting in phase play or waiting for ball in off a scrum or line out. I think it would add to the article in that it would further explain how the backs are positioned offensively. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 09:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

I think the history needs a huge clean-up. First of all, it needs to be a lot more general, and does not need to be so detailed...

  • Information should not jump between eras (ie. talking about WWE, and then saying he would later be honored by the William Webb Ellis cup etc..
  • Do we need so much info of the first football clubs?
  • The IRB was called the IRFB at first...
  • The info about rugby's introduction into NZ is a bit random, perhaps talking about the global spread in colonies and so on would be better
  • There is too much info about the 1895/1908 splits
  • Shouldnt it mention early football in USA?
  • It then jumps forward an odd 100 years to the 95 WC...(wheres the 87' WC, France banned from the 5N...)
  • Whilst theh formation of IGRAB is important, listing the various clubs is not really needed
  • Also, we need to mention the rise of the womens game from teh 1990s, first couple of WCs, IRB support..
  • There is no need to mention specifics like the 2003 WC, whilst it should be there somewhere, its not the place to metion how Woodward resigned etc etc...
  • The All Blacks winning % is off-topic...
    • I think we need to rewrite this section completely, what does everyone else think?? Cheers. Cvene64 14:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The Woodward bit got added because somebody from the Southern hemisphere put something in about the sport having been dominated by SA / NZ / Aus, which is a) POV b) a bizarre POV immediately after the 2003 WC - England were officially number one and had a string of victories against supposedly superior opposition. Somebody else then added a section about England weren't any good any more and how Woody jumped ship to avoid being sacked.
Conclusion - one POV comment can lead to a whole raft of others. Perhaps it would be best to avoid remarks about which teams are the best on this the main page.GordyB 15:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby in the 2000 Sydney Olympics?

I've talked to Cvene64 about this, but I want to make absolutely sure. Do any of you know wether or not a Rugby 7's competition (either tournament or just a single game) took place as part of the 2000 Sydney Summer Olympics? A user on the Olympic sports page keeps insisting that such an event took place although he has put up rather sketchy sources. Does anyone have any information on this? Perakhantu 09:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forward Pass

Got a feeling we might be factually incorrect here. From the article "The players are also allowed to throw the ball from player to player, but unlike American football they are not allowed to throw it forwards; ie the ball must only go sideways or backwards." I'm almost certain that the law regarding this was changed from a forward pass being illegal, to anything but a pass going backwards being illegal. Can someone check this and provide a source? It's a pretty fundamental thing to get wrong. Alexj2002 22:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You aren't allowed to propel the ball forward with any part of your body other than the foot. The ball must leave your hands in a sideways or backwards direction. Some people talk about a momentum rule but to my knowledge this is an invention of the media.GordyB 22:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

From the IRB laws at http://www.irb.com/NR/rdonlyres/5FB8A13C-0ECD-49D6-8366-160AA8CA38B8/0/060704LGLAWSEN_00_Complete.pdf - "DEFINITION THROW FORWARD A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line."

No mention of momentum at all - sorry Michael Lynagh. The ball either moves toward the opponents' goal line or it doesn't. Sideways is fine.

GordyB, as far as I can find in the laws, there isn't any mention of not being "allowed to propel the ball forward with any part of your body other than the foot", or not being allowed to head the ball forward, for example. The laws define a kick as "made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground."

Hippo43 12:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-reading the laws I find that you can head the ball (I knew that) but the rules don't seem to forbid you from heading forwards which surprises me. You are also allowed 'rebounds' with the ball hitting your chest or shoulder and going forwards (and blocked kicks too), I can't see anything that specifically forbids deliberately chesting the ball as footballers sometimes do but I wouldn't be surprised if it was ruled a knock-on.GordyB 12:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right - most refs would give a knock-on without a second thought if you deliberately chested the ball forward, even though the the letter of the law seems to allow it.Hippo43 18:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

What is up with all these links? Who selected the list of clubs? Its pretty weird, we need to sort out the list and maintain it. Cvene64 08:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Injury

"Player Injury" should be mentioned in this article. The articles on [American Football] all have references to casualties (or even fatalities). I also think a comparison is needed between occurances of injury within Rugby to other sports.

[edit] All Blacks Peer review

I've submitted All Blacks article for a peer-review, please go to WP:PR and leave comments if people suggest improvements. This is important if we want to get this article to FA status. - Shudda talk 01:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes regarding particular teams/individuals need references

Just saw the addition of Munster and NZ being renowned at the maul. If you cant provide a reference then you should put it in. "Snorkel | Talk" 18:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Munster and NZ in the section on Maul as nobody was able to provide a reference. "Snorkel | Talk" 15:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Good call. Relative to the All Blacks present excellence at every phase of the game, I don't think their mauling is particularly impressive or important. Their rucking and mastery of the post-tackle -- now thats impressive. -- GWO
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/g/Talk%7ERugby_union_70b2.html"