Talk:History of rugby union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is nominated for rugby union collaboration of the fortnight.
Please vote on the nomination here.
Wikiproject Rugby union
Rugby union Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union. This project provides a central approach to rugby union-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing History of rugby union, and help us assess and improve articles to good and featured standards, or visit the project page, where you can join and view the list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment 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 (6 May 06 - 31 May 06). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.
To-do list for History of rugby union: edit · history · watch · refresh

Pending tasks

  • Expand lead (summary of article)
  • Add references Very important
  • De-list the article
  • Expand on current sections...

Resources

See also Talk:Rugby football Talk:Rugby Union

Contents

[edit] Demarcation

I'm a bit uneasy about this page being called "History of Rugby Union", as it appropriates the common history of both kinds of Rugby. I mean when the Northern Rugby Union broke away, the intention was not to create a totally different sport, it was simply to allow professionalism. So I think this page should be called "History of Rugby" or "History of Rugby Football". Grant65 (Talk) 18:05, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

No, after the split the two carried on separately. We need to mention here stuff like South Africa and apartheid and the naughty tours, The stuff in the Sout of France with the Vichy government, how several players died during the war, etc. "History of Rugby" would also be bad as it would refer to the town. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
added abit about Vichy, as you suggest.Grinner 10:14, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

What should be on what page is being discussed on Talk:Rugby football Philip Baird Shearer 09:32, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The modern age

I can see why some of the league specific section in the modern era were removed, however unless we have a couple of lines like I just added it may appear the union has succeede in killing league, which it patently hasn't. In fact the growth of amteru rl (up 94%) is mainly due to the ending of union sanctions, particluarly in southern england and in UK schools. Grinner 09:23, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Its OK by me. But I am going to revert the tense of the sentence starting The Union clubs and national teams to the present tense because they are still benefiting. Philip Baird Shearer 14:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions wanted

Contributors to this page and interested readers, please help adjudicate the controversy at Talk:Rutgers_University. Thanks.Grant65 (Talk) 08:40, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shamaterism

revert - links to article on Shamaterism is thematically linked to paragraph plus the word 'openly' is important since abuses were widespread Taken from History of the article posted by User:GordyB 21:41, 16 May 2005 (UCT)

If it was "widespread" please provide credible sources. My major objection though is that the current format over-emphasise Shamaterism in Rugby Union. Were there any players before the game went professional who made a living from Rugby Union? The use of the word openly implies that the game was secretly professional which is was not. If it was then please provide a reputable source --Philip Baird Shearer
House of Commons, Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport: [1]. Some quotes:
"The absorption of professionalism into Rugby Union in the Northern Hemisphere was dictated by the reality of shamateurism at the highest levels of the game, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, where the pretence of amateur status had become severely undermined and unsustainable."
"Although Rugby Union had been ostensibly amateur since its birth, the regulations prohibiting professionalism were not, in practice, enforced.[8] Governing bodies "turned a blind eye" to breaches of the regulations."
Grinner 09:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


6. The absorption of professionalism into Rugby Union in the Northern Hemisphere was dictated by the reality of shamateurism at the highest levels of the game, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, where the pretence of amateur status had become severely undermined and unsustainable.


This report implies that the game had been largely amateur and had moved towards professionalism, not that it had always been that way. It also suggests that the process was further advanced in the Southern Hemisphere. I do not think that anyone would disagree that the changes were made because the internal as well as external pressure for change. However it is a long way from reporting on this state of affairs in last couple of decades of the 20th century and implying that shameterism was the usual position for the whole of the history of Rugby Union before the change to professionalism. The whole tenant of the article is that the change over from armature to professionalism happened quickly and that Rugby Union in the UK was not realy prepared for the change. If shameterism had been as widespread then the institutions would have adapted easily. Philip Baird Shearer 10:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Rugby Union has always had 'boot money' payments. If you read any player biographies from the amateur era e.g. Martin Johnson's or any history of rugby union book e.g. 'Rugby and all that' they will all say that it went on (without naming names or admiting anything). There was even a case of a New Zealand player who having suffered injury tried to sue for 'loss of earnings'. One of the reasons why Wales never went over to the league game was because a blind eye was turned to 'boot money'. This is not an anti-Union point as I am a fan of both games but we should be honest about the history of rugby union.GordyB 14:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Marting Johnson is hardly an historic figure. Seeing as he was one of the first professional players. I have personal memories of discussing payments to rugby union players in the 1970's and it revolved around discussions at the level of whether a student could claim more than the bus fare if he went to training sessions by car. I knew a couple of players who had to make a choice between making themselves available for Wales or England. As far as I know, financial considerations were not an issue when they made their Decisions. At least it never came up during some very drunken evenings when the subject was discussed. It was not about large payments of money which your highlighting of the issue implies. I think that the inclusion of the link to shamerteism in the professional section is a valuable addition to the article, but the issue was not so major that it needs a link in italics like that to rugby league. As I said before your use of the word adjective "openly" implies that it.
Before the advent of satellite TV channels in the1980s there was not a lot of cash slopping about Rugby Union. In England Rugby Union tended to be played by the professional classes. Before the 1960's the wages of football players were capped well below those which most professional people could earn. It is extremely unlikely that there was enough money in Rugby Union to make payments at anything like the level played in association football, which was not much more than pin money for a man in one of the professions. Why should such a man risk his reputation for pin money? Philip Baird Shearer 15:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Martin Johnson said that when he joined Leicester Tigers he was naive and bought his own kit. According to him most of the older players had sponsorship deals. He also said he believed that boot money payments were widespread in New Zealand and that a suspicious number of players moved to weaker clubs further away from their home base. Clive Woodward in his book Winning! admits to paying two Australian players from Manley from his own company. They were recruited to play for his club Henley on the basis on their rugby abilities and ended up getting paid for doing a job which they were given because they were rugby players. Supposedly amateur players were 'found' jobs which they were paid to do but they were not treated like normal employees. Tours in those days lasted a long time. A normal person would not have been given such generous time off and certainly would not have been paid to do so. Dallaglio claimed that Campese played his rugby in Italy because of the job that went with it and that he was frustrated with the low standard of play and refereeing. 'Rugby and all that' makes the claim that the French were kicked out of the 5N partly for running a professional league and were then readmitted after having made a half-hearted attempt to stamp it out. All of these books are written for a rugby union audience for a rugby union audience, they are not written with the intent to put rugby union down. We may not be talking about soccer style salaries but there was widespread abuse of supposedly amateur rules, that is why the word 'openly' is important because some players had always been making money out of the game on the sly.GordyB 22:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The word "openly" is very important: at the moment that section reads as if there were no abuses of amatuerism, which is patently false. Grinner 09:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Using the adjective "openly" implies that before it was "secretly" professional. While most people would not deny that there was some abuse of the amateur code before it went professional, very few would claim that Rugby Union was professional before it turned professional. Philip Baird Shearer 13:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Instead of 'It would be a century before union became professional' we could have 'It would be a century before union legalised payments to players'. That way it does not imply that abuses did not happen nor that everybody was abusing the rules.GordyB 21:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer the original wording, but as you do not, your new wording is a good compromise. Philip Baird Shearer 08:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I am also happy with GordyB's new wording. Grinner 08:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1947-1987

From reading this article it would seem that nothing happened in the game between these years. Does anyone know of some good sources on, for example, the Springbok tours in the seventies and the rebel tours in the eighties. Anything else we can add? Soundabuser 08:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Some random events:

  • 1949:ARU becomes total governing body in Aus.
  • 1959:William Webb Ellis' grave is located
  • 1971:First Scotland coach
  • 1975: USA Rugby formed due to rise in pop. over the past decade
  • 1983:Womens Rugby Football Union formed
  • 1984:Wallabies tour

Hmm...not sure if these are appropriate..but thats some general info. Cvene64 11:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote some..but this article really needs work. We should nominate for the next COTF.Cvene64 11:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea.Soundabuser 14:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

[edit] How to

When adding information be sure to add a citation by adding this after it (using Wikipedia as an example:

<ref name="wiki1">{{cite web | publisher=wikipedia.org | title=Main page of Wikipedia | url=http://www.en.wikipedia.org/main| accessdate=1 April | accessyear=2006}}</ref>

  • Be sure to change all the names, publishers, titles, urls, and access dates to your specific reference.

-->If you are using the same source later, re-reference like this:

<ref name="wiki"/>

[edit] If you don't know how/don't have time

Just add the web address in as a link, by putting it in [http://www.wikipedia.org/] --[2] Another user will fix it for you, just be sure to add a link. Cvene64 11:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professionalism

I have added some info regarding the formation of SANZAR and the Super and Tri-Nations Series. Unfortunately most of the information came from one source (see footnotes) and I'm not too happy with that. If anyone out there has the book The Rugby War by Peter FitzSimons could they please read through what I've added and correct and add references as applicable. I would do it myself but am unable to locate a copy of the book. Thanks. - Shudda talk 05:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work shudda. I don't have the text your after, but I'm sure someone will dig up additional references. Good on you for joining the wikiproject as well. Cvene64 05:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Shudda - I have toned down the events around the Springbok decision to sign with their Union. Whilst Ross Turnbull may have thought they reneged, they did not. The Springboks never handed over the signed contracts. They signed them and handed them over to Francois Pienaar for safekeeping. The WRC never got sight of these signed contracts. The Springboks voted on it and chose their Union. Conincidentally Francois Pienaar voted for the WRC but was overruled by his team. I will add the footnote soon. It is actually from Francois Pienaar's own book (the man that had the contracts)--Biscuit1018 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, cool. As long as it's well referenced. I took all the info from that book, but if you can clarify things that would be great. - Shudde talk 22:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The lists at the bottom

What is everyones opinion of the lists at the bottom of the article? I think we should make an effort to de-list this article as much as possible, as lists, in general, are frowned upon, if they can be turned into paragraphs. What should we do?

I think we can probably remove the list of inaugural competitions, as they should really be mentioned in the general history. Things like list of memorable tours/games may not belong here, would anyone be opposed to starting List of notable rugby union matches or something like that? Also, I think we should move the IRB bullet points to the IRB page...Discuss..Cvene64 05:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you have said above. Definitely start a list of notable rugby union matches, however I think that if they do not have an article written on them then they shouldn't be included. Looks like there are not articles on those games so maybe move then to the talk page and people can create articles on them prior to creating a separate list. Same goes for the tours, although articles on them will most likely be easier to find. - Shudda talk 06:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is the "in general" you are referring to? Many articles which I have written for minor military historical figurers are turned from a CV style into paragraphs without any additional information being added, (I do not watch all the pages I have created) and when later I link to that article I find it very difficult to find the information for which I created the CV in the first place. A typical example is to show the links between several men who are later on the staff of a General, who were all at a military collage at the same time, because one has to take a paragraph, take look for a year add on two, because the paragraph now says two years later X was a Y staff collage. The in a second article on another man, look for a year and take off three, because it now says "three years earlier Z had been at Y staff collatge". So what was once an easy thing to show is now difficult.
So I think that the lists at the bottom of this article are useful and I will resist attempts to remove them. I am not against creating a list of notable rugby union matches (although I think it will be POV laden and will not get involved in it), but I think that the most notable half dozen or so should remain in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
However because of size constraints on the article which are are now occuring, I would not object to the "Timeline of the foundation of national rugby unions/federations" and "The history of the International Rugby Board" being moved out to other articles. Only trouble is that in my experiance that removing lists like these from an article does not tend to free up much space. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
See the FAC. It is the goal of the rugby union COTF to get an article to FA status, any article with lists (especially with this many) will most likely get smoked at the FAC page. Also, any list of memorable games would not be any less POV in this article than it would be in its own. Cvene64 15:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, you should think about joining the Rugby union wikiproject. Cheers. Cvene64 15:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
There are in my opinion lots of things wrong with FAC criteria, which is why I do not get involved with them. I agree that any list of memorable games is a POV list, but one can probably get an interested group to agree on the best half dozen or so. Having been involved in lots of list articles involving pov all of them need a strong definition of what is to be included in the list otherwise they degenerate into a list which has no real use eg List of massacres (which is one I have walked away from because I do not see how to fix it). --Philip Baird Shearer 15:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that having the history of the IRB is a lot more relevant to the history of rugby union then any significant games or tours (except maybe where apartheid controversy was involved). As for the list of memorable games being POV, I think the fact they are memorable makes them less POV then other criteria. There are certainly games out there that few rugby commentators and players would argue should not be included, such as the 2000 Bledisloe game in Sydney and the All Blacks Barbarians game of 73. - Shudda talk 23:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops. I didnt see your comment Shudda, I just moved the IRB info to the IRB page. Do you want to bring it back?
I'm not to worried, but I think that the IRB info is more important then the memorable games/tours or even then foundation of different unions. See what other people think before deciding to bring it back. - Shudda talk 05:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The professional era

The laws of the game paragraph needs updating See

-Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)