Talk:Rugby football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Rugby football as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Italian language Wikipedia.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Sports and games Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Sports To-do: edit  Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Average (sports) (crucial article explaining the concept, nomenclature, math; redir to it from Average (sport); use Batting average as starting point for ideas) Cleanup: Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) Other: Assess: newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status. Split: Cross-training into Cross-training and Cross-training (business); Hockey puck into Puck (sports) (w/ Puck (sport) redir) and Hockey puck (and update Puck DAB page); Swimming into Swimming (general activity) and Swimming (sport) (eventually create subarticles for varieties) Categorize: Gather all (major/olympic) sports to be part of this project Photographs for pages listed in Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Society#Sport and referenced categories.

	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 Rugby football, 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

NEW! Task force on State of Origin NEW!
Want to help improve Rugby league articles? Join WikiProject Rugby league

	The article on Rugby football is supported by the WikiProject on Rugby League, which is to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league related articles on Wikipedia. If you wish this article to be re-assessed, go to our Assessment Department and add it to the list. If you wish this article to be peer-reviewed, go to our Peer Review Department and add it to the list. If you rated this article you may want to leave some comments here on how the article can be improved.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Contents 1 On Rugby History 2 disambiguation 2.1 History of Rugby Football 3 IRB members 4 Rugby (footy) 5 girlfirend named Kay 6 Opinions wanted 7 History 8 "Gridiron" 9 McIntyre_System 10 WikiProject Rugby 11 History questions 12 No protection? 13 The photograph needs to be replaced. 14 Culture and... humour? 15 The Times Digital Archive 15.1 What you must do 16 More Info Please 17 Popularity 18 External links 19 Whats the difference ? 20 Requested move 20.1 Survey 20.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 20.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 20.2 Discussion 21 National sport 22 France? 23 Italian Version of this Article 24 Vandalism 25 Flump? 26 Ruffians 27 Ireland

[edit] On Rugby History

The page football covers the early development of the game in detail. The new page History of rugby union covers the development of Rugby Union where the history of football ends. Similarly the Rugby League#History covers the history of Rugby League. This is the format suggested by in the discussion pages of the Talk:Football#Details on the history and development of specific sports page by Mintguy and agreed to by Grant65.

I agree with this principle to a limited extent, but I think that there should be a summary of main points in the development of history of the game on the football page beyond the schisms. However as I agree that the football page is large I am willing to conceded that this may not be desirable. That though is a thread which should be argued on Talk:Football.

I mentioned the above because it seems to me that we have run into the similar problem in this page. Mintguy(talk) copied (and improved on) the information in the first paragraph of the history on this article in to the History of rugby union#Early history so improving that section in that article. As he did this, it seems like common sense to me that keeping almost identical text in to related article is not the best way to use resources. It is best to summarise on one article an put in a link from that article to the other if the reader needs more details.

Grant65 removed some of my edits which had reduced duplicated paragraphs to summaries, but left some of the summery points in place which had not existed before. The section is now a mismatch of detail and summary paragraphs with no link to History of rugby union or direct link to Rugby League#History so that the reader can view more detail on the summary points. He also posted a message to my talk page Please stop making major changes to the various football/rugby pages, without consulting Wikipedians who have been working on those pages for some time. It's rude and it's not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I disagree with him, the are open pages, and if one is too close to a page often one can not see the wood for the trees. As I have explained above there is a logic to my changes which I hope on reflection Grant65(talk) will agree with. If not then please make your case and I will consider it, just as I have on the size of the Football page limiting content to pre-schism) Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The football article is a quite long. Given that the title is football, I think it makes sense in that article to stop talking about the details of specific codes at the point at which those codes branch off because it will lead to the article becomming unbalaced if someone adds whole chunks of information about a specific sport, when this information would serve its purpose better on a page about a given sport. With rugby we have some slight complexity. We have a page called rugby football another called rugby union and another called history of rugby union and another called rugby league, there is inevitably going to be some crossover in these articles. The question is, does it matter, and if so, what is the best way to resolve it? Well wikipedia isn't runng out of disk space, so unless the articles are reaching the kind of length of the 'football' article I don't think it does matter. There is nothing wrong with duplication of information in different Wikipedia articles if the relevant text is in context and it doesn't unbalance the article. How many articles, for example, say that Germany invaded Poland in 1939? The alternative to having some crossover is to be strict and say that the article on rugby union should begin with the formation of the RFU, and the article on the history of the rugby league should begin with the formation of that organization and that in both cases the article should point to the article on 'Rugby football' for earlier history and 'football' for the ancient history. If this is the approach that is to be taken then Webb Ellis should be mentioned on the rugby football page only. However I suspect that people will be continually adding to the pages about rugby league and rugby union that the sport was invented by Willaim Webb Elllis. My opinion is that any article that starts of by saying "William Webb Ellis invented rugby" is just plain wrong. Either the myth should be explained for what it is, or it shouldn't be mentioned at all. So either this text is duplicated in the various articles or is left within the context of the rugby football page only. Mintguy (T) 11:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The major argument about duplication of data is not so much disk space as accuracy. For example you have just changed the date of the first written rules of rugby from 1843 to 1845 in the History of rugby union. Before you noticed that, the date was different from the one on [[Rugby football]. The more copies the more likely there are to be differences and the more pages which may need to be fixed, which mean more work. This is exactly the reason why procedures/functions and library calls were developed in computer programming.

For this reason as the history information is now in the Rugby Union and Rugby League pages there is no need for it to be repeated in detail on this page (just summarised). Particularly when including a line similar to this:

For a more details on the History of Rugby see the following articles articles:Football, History of rugby union and Rugby League#History

Philip Baird Shearer 15:02, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation

Personally I'd vote for moving the information on this page to either the Rugby Union or Rugby League pages and turning this page into a disambiguation page. But as that is not likely to happen in the near future, moving detailed information and leaving summaries seems like the way to go. Philip Baird Shearer 15:02, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What begins as disambiguation sometimes turns into prose. When I first discovered Wikipedia the page at 'Football' was about the association game, but there was a huge disambiguation block at the beginning. There was a page called 'list of football players' that someone moved to list of soccer players, this prodoced a debate about the naming and content of the former page. The page eventually became a disambiguation page and I wrote what became an article called "the history of football", sometime later the content at 'football' was increased and began to duplicate (sometimes inaccurately) the information at history of football, so I took a decision to move all of the information at 'history of football' to 'football'. So I take you point about duplicate information causing problems. Perhaps we should sort out some rules as to what goes where then. I'll wait for Grant to comment. Mintguy (T) 17:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree Philip. More disambiguation and reconciliation of the pages is needed, but a disambiguation page need not be a stub. The Rugby Union and Rugby League pages should be bigger, but there was half a century of history before the split occurred, and the early history belongs on this page as much as anywhere else

You say "The major argument about duplication of data is not so much disk space as accuracy." I'm sure there are lots of discrepancies between Wikipedia pages. So what? In most cases they are easily fixed and are not likely to be reproduced widely.

The silly (but innocuous) stuff about "alickadoos" and "old farts" should probably be on the Rugby Union page, if anywhere, but that's about all that I would change at the moment.Grant65 (Talk) 17:34, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

I will concede that the section on Rules should probably stay as it is informative and not easily placed into either Union or League without duplication. However the General description is a mess; (there is a far better section in the Rugby League article.( which the Rugby Union article would do well to mimic). The Culture and humour section is disingenuous as it is English Union specific (I would not expect that the are not many girls called Kay etc. in Papua New Guinea). But in the same section the piece on what the Rugby codes are called could do with expansion, because like the Rules it is informative and placed anywhere else would lead to duplication.

The 50 years of rugby you mention before the split with League is covered by the history of Football and the History of rugby union. The word Union only had to be added that code, as a shorthand, when the split with League took place for ease of reference, (but it is the same game run by the same governing bodies). This is exactly the same as the word Rugby being added to the handling game after the split with Association Football (AF) to differentiate the two codes (and why those English speaking countries which commonly refer to other codes as "football" tend to use "soccer" to describe AF). I think that the 7 years (Dec 1863 - Jan 1871) between the forming of the AF and the formation of the RFU, which it could be argued should be covered in this article, are too few to justify this as they can be covered in the quote Those who play the rugby-type game should meet to form a code of practice as various clubs play to rules which differ from others, which makes the game difficult to play which is in the open letter initiating the formation of the RFU.

If Wikipedia is to be a credible alternative encyclopaedia, then discrepancies (error) matter. The more pages containing the same information the more work in maintain them and the greater the chance that errors will creep in. This is why I think we should reduce the paragraphs to summaries if they are described in detail on other pages and those pages should be included as easily accessible links. Philip Baird Shearer 12:43, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of Rugby Football

I was asked to repsond here by User:Philip Baird Shearer who posted this on my talk page:

Nice job on your creation of History of Rugby League BUT I think that the page History of Rugby Football should not contain any details: See my comments on Talk:Rugby_football#disambiguation:

If Wikipedia is to be a credible alternative encyclopaedia, then discrepancies (error) matter. The more pages containing the same information the more work in maintain them and the greater the chance that errors will creep in. This is why I think we should reduce the paragraphs to summaries if they are described in detail on other pages and those pages should be included as easily accessible links.

So I would like to make History of Rugby Football a disambiguated page.

It is probably better that you reply there so that others who have an interest in this can see the conversation. Philip Baird Shearer 13:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would say that we should consider Rugby before the schism as a seperate sport from the two new games. It should not be forgotten that by 1904 there were more rugby league clubs that rugby union clubs in England [1]. If we are to make History of Rugby Football a disambiguation page then BOTH pages (RL & RU) should include information about earlier times - we should not give the (rugby union official line) impression that RL is simply an offshoot of RU, it is a game in its own right with equal claim to the pre-1895 history of rugby.Grinner 14:02, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

---

Good luck with the history of rugby league/union pages, but as Mintguy has pointed out, the reason why he merged the "History of Football" page into Football was that the history page was being neglected. Not only is there room for full histories on the main pages for each code, I think those pages need a full history. Otherwise how is someone from Iceland, Indonesia or Idaho really going to appreciate the differences between them? Grant65 (Talk) 15:35, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

I would be quite happy for History of Rugby Football to be merged into Rugby Football; I would not be happy for the pre-schism history of rugby league to be on History of rugby union. Grinner 15:46, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

My argument is (as expressed above in the paragraph which starts The 50 years of rugby you mention before the split with League is covered... There was only 7 years between the formation of AF and the formation of the RFU which can be summed up in a sentence. To have a page on the History of RU and not include the formation of the first RFU [or by chronological order the IR(F)B] seems odd.

Although the popular label for RU changed with the Rugby schism all the formal names, institutions, and laws of RU did not. Your argument that RU did not exist (or was some how a diffrent organisaton) before the schism is not true. It was RL wich created a new orgnization the 'Old Farts' carried on as before. There may have been more League teams in England than Union, but by this time the IR(F)B based in Dublin was the Union "world governing and law-making body" was concerned with Rugby (Union) clubs and federations world wide.

That RL is a branch of RU does not demimish Rugby League (I think it deminished RU, as was proven when RU became an "open" sport). This is just the same as acknowledging that Rugby (Union) branched away from the most popular form of football and is not dimimished as a sport for doing so. The label Rugby Union is only one of convenience and acknowledgement that there is a daughter sport has grown to adulthood and that some way of distinguishing two equals is needed.

I would still argue, that whatever is decided (in article demarcation) only summaries of events should appear on all but one of the pages. Philip Baird Shearer 17:03, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Apologies that I appear to have wandered into something of debate here; there was no discussion on the History of rugby union page, so I felt justified in making bold changes. Had I come here first I probably would of steered clear!

PBS, I'm not quite clear on what you are suggesting, can you clarify your ideas please. Surely you're not saying that RL and RU do not each deserve their own history page?Grinner 08:46, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I can see what you are saying because my wording about summaries is ambiguous. The main information should be in the article where it is most pertinent. For example a History of rugby union article is not complete without a (brief) mention of the schism and the formation of League. But the details, like the clubs which went to the George Hotel and formed NRFU, belong in the History of Rugby League article. IF there had been a significant period of Rugby history between the formation of the FA and the RFU, then that information would go on a History of RF. But because there were only 7 years and the period can be summed up in a sentence this is not necessary. So this is what I propose:

1. On Hru restore the information from the HR article.
2. On HRL summarise the history of Rugby before the RL/RU schism, links to Football and Hru for more details. This can be done with links in the text like it is in the current first paragraph of the HR for Football. Add more to the history of RL since the Schism: For example how did RL organise its self internationally (like the IRB) paragraph in the Hru.
3. Make the History of Rugby a disambiguation article links to History of rugby union and History of Rugby League
4. decide whether capitalise or do not capitalise all but the first words in the title so that they are consistent.
5. Cut down the history paragraphs in the Rugby Football, Rugby Union and Rugby League pages to a summary of the contents of the history articles. Philip Baird Shearer 10:25, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I think I can live with that, though any wording that sugggests that the schism was a minor side point in the history of rugby union will get re-written pretty swiftly!

Now capitalisation - I have always written Rugby League, this seems to be common for in League Express and the RFL, conversley Rugby Union authorities do not capitalise. Personally I much prefer the capitals, but I accept that for titles the concensus is only capitalise first letter (History of rugby league, not history of Rugby League).Grinner 10:57, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Lets give it 24 hours to see if anyone else wants to comment. If not I'll do 1 and 3, also move the page from HR to Hr, and the links to those pages. Later I'll summarise history on the RU page and do a similar thing to history on the RF page. I'll leave the RL pages to you. Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] IRB members

I don't really see why the IRB members box is here, surely it should only belong on the union page? Grinner 10:33, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I included it because it seemed to complement (and expand) the union paragraph in the General description. If you REALY think it is inapropriate and causes clutter then I shall not re-instate it if you remove it.Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It does seem a bit 'cluttery' to me, particulary because of the huge number of dead links, but I'll not remove it just yet. Anyone else got any opinions? Grinner 13:07, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Rugby (footy)

I've worked a lot in both australia and nz, and i've never heard of rugby union ever before reffered to as "football".

google [footy site:nz]. Did you never watch the "footy show" in New Zealand? As a sample site picked from the google have a look at:

• http://www.nzdf.org.nz/update/messages/2166.htm

Philip Baird Shearer 08:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I played second row and 8man in college, and my team was the SMCM Women's Rugby Football Union...

[edit] girlfirend named Kay

What does this expression mean? I've only played rugby in the US, so maybe it's a idiom from another English speaking country? I would love to know! smags

[edit] Opinions wanted

Contributors to this page and interested readers, please help adjudicate the controvery at Talk:Rutgers_University. Thanks.Grant65 (Talk) 08:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History

I agree that most of the early history should be from this entry and not that specificially for RU. The branching should go football --> British Isles folk football --> rugby --> Rugby Union --> Canadian & American football (to follow just that line, for example).

However, I'd like to see acknowledgement of the view some hold who say that what they consider rugby in its essence (a type of football already distinct from others being played in the British Isles, and distinct in ways more significant than the ways all the different versions differed from each other) came to Rugby School from Wales.

What I'd most like to learn would be how the goals got to be 18'6" wide!

robgood@bestweb.net

[edit] "Gridiron"

In Australia, the them gridiron to refer to american football is prety much defunct. People just say "American Football".

I've used the term gridiron less recently, in favour of gridiron, but i'd say gridiron is still a popular term POds 04:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McIntyre_System

Can you advise who comes third in the national rugby league finals using the McIntyre Top 8 system.

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference_desk#McIntyre_System. Please reply there if you have an answer. :) ¦ Reisio 17:15, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Rugby

Any people with a good knowledge of the game, either code, please join thanks. DaGizza 11:12 12 September 2005

The reason why the points are not mentioned in the section on the rules is that different codes (e.g. league and union) award different numbers of points. DJ Clayworth 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History questions

Moved from the Article to here --Philip Baird Shearer 18:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC):

If anybody knows answers to questions such as these, please edit the article to include them

-What is different about rugby and American football that allows rugby players to not wear pads.

-What the serious injury rate is in rugby compared to other sports

[edit] No protection?

Just curious, why is it that American football requires helmets and padding, while rugby does not?

My husband has played both American football and rugby. The tackling and playing styles differ greatly. The reason protection became necessary in American football is because it became far more explosive and thus dangerous to play without it. In AF short bursts of extreme activity, which include high impact tackles, interceptions and pile-ups alternate with time-outs. In rugby there are long stretches of continuous running play during which many delicate maneuvers can occur. Tackles result in rucks or mauls which are carefully controlled by the referee (or should be) and generally lack the cannon-like force found in AF. Rugby players sometimes wear head protection primarily to prevent torn ears which are a hazard in this game. They will also sometimes wear upper body protection but risk teasing. Kittyflop 20:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To expand on this, the tackles are slightly different in their goal. Rugby tackles tend to be directed at the legs, while American football tackles are generally directed at the torso (though leg tackles are also common), in order to force the ball carrier to fall backwards. Also, there are less restrictions on contact in American football, especially involving players that are not in possession of the ball. --67.165.6.76 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the neccessity of pads in American football is because there are alot less sheparding rules, and there are players coming in every direction and at every angle. In my experience, injuries tend to happen in tackles when the player being tackled is not ready or aware for the collision. This situation tends to be the bread and gravy of American football because of the forward pass etc. but is nt a situation that happens alot in footy except when high kicks are being taken, and those rules are regulated. I think, from the little I have seen of the American game, that tackling in both games in very similar, just that the offside rule allows for lucid player perception.

As for the injury factor, a recent report was done that found that rugby league at junior/amateur levels resulted in alot less injuries than soccer, AFL and rugby union, though rugby league has the reputation(probably deserved) of being the most violent and pugilistic sport of them all... so the results were quite shocking to alot of people. Hope that helps :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

In Rugby you are not allowed to BLOCK. This is where MOST of the injuries were coming from, like in the "Flying Wedge" which actually caused fatalities. (Mauls are taken from this idea but can only be used if the defense has been "binded" otherwise the maul must disperse). In 1905, Theodore Roosevelt told football leagues to make it safer or have it outlawed so players started wearing pads. Football pads protect you from the other guys pads. My experience is this: you only need the bulkier plastic pads if the other person is wearing them. When you block, your intention is to keep the guy back, but tackling usually involves both players going down, a lot less force is needed to knock someone over (divert his motion into the ground) than to stop his motion all together. In rugby the tackler must wrap his arms in the attempt, this protects both players more than an often used tackle in football where you just run into the guy as hard as you can, sometimes twisting away to hit only with the shoulders. Billy Nair 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The photograph needs to be replaced.

Few rugby players wear helmet/headgear, but this photo gives the impression they do. Moriori 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture and... humour?

Maybe it's because I'm American, or maybe because I don't see the humor in purposely excluding the working class, but is there anything in this article humorous at all? It might be nitpicky, but it's a misleading header. Flannel 21:00, 30 March 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 05:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Info Please

Not much useful information about the very beautiful game of rugby here!

Try adding what you know. (There's more at Rugby Union and the other codes.) Tristanb

Also alickadoos? What??? This must be a regional expression, it should probably state that in the paragraph. I'm gonna leave it though :-) Tristanb 10:08, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity

I never knew that there was two versions of Rugby, and there's actually two world cups. Given, that after reading this article, I know of these two versions, what I think is missing, and would be interesting to the reader is which of the two versions (Union, League) is more popular (in terms of players, viewers, respect, etc). Just through some reading I would guess it is Rugby Union as I've heard of the All Blacks, but not the Kiwis from New Zealand. Whoever has that information, I think it would add a lot to people's understanding. -- Jeff3000 22:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the answer varies from place to place. In England there is a north-south divide, also running parallel along class boundaries. In the industrial north the professioanl Rugby League was formed because of snobbery from the southern Rugby Union regarding the payment of players (working class northerners couldn't afford to risk injury playing it for a hobby with no financial recompense). Throughout the rest of the UK Rugby Union has working class roots itself and so Rugby League is far less popular. In Australia, on the other hand, Rugby League is the main sport (in the eastern states) at club level, but Rugby Union appears to be popular at national level. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, can/do players transfer from one type of Rugby to the other? Do club Rugby League players in Australia play on the National Rugby Union team? Given that the Rugby Union World Cup seems to be the third most popular sporting event after the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, maybe the article could state that at the national levels, Rugby Union is more popular, while the popularity of professional club teams depends on the location (if this statement is true). -- Jeff3000 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Players do change codes (see Iestyn Harris, Andrew Farrell, Chev Walker) but will only play one at a time (i.e. a Rugby League player wouldn't be found in the Australian national Rugby Union team). The closest integration would be at clubs like Leeds and Harlequins where coaches are shared between the League and Union sides and youth, or maybe even peripheral players may try both codes before finding a place in one of the squads. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 07:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a different kettle of fish because traditionally international rugby league was alot more popular than international rugby union, though today in Australia the situation changed in the 90's to the point that rugby union was indisputably the no.1 international sporting team of the country(cricket aside). Today it is slowly changing back at the international level to leave a slightly ambiguous situation, international rugby union will draw big crowds everywhere in Australia, but international rugby league will generally recieve much higher ratings on t.v. than union's top event, the Bledisloe Cup. At club level and cultural level it is indisputably rugby league (rugby union has not really expanded its influence in the traditional football states since the end of the last world cup ad has gone backwards in some ways whereas league is moving forward very quickly). Super 14 attendances in Australia do not match the top 18 NRL crowds at all although 5 years ago they exceeded them. Also htere are only 3or4? super 14 teams that represent states and territories where as there are 15 NRL teams that are either Sydney football clubs and represent localities in Sydney or are one city teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Britain: Popularity - the considered opinion is that Rugby Union has a vastly superior international game in terms of popular support, and Rugby League has a more popular league, in terms on tv viewing and attendances. I believe this wants attention on this page. Londo06 10:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've removed this section, its content is below:

www.footworkcamp.com Intelligent Running Rugby for Players and Coaches. Includes free clips video of USA Star Ellie Karvoski!

www.usarugby.org/playing/youth/IsRugbySafeForYouth.pdf “Is rugby a safe sport for America’s youth?”

www.rugbycity.net ASA Camels Beer-Sheva Rugby club - Israel

www.cokecans.com/can/577-You-could-make-the-all-Black-Team Coca-Cola Cans set of New-Zealand Black Team

fraugustine.priory.org/RugbyWebSite.htm Kwai Nyu Rugby Club

www.picture-newsletter.com/rugby/index.htm Pictures Rugby

www.rochesteraardvarks.com/ Rochester Aardvarks Rugby Football Club

www.thesportbar.com/ Rugby Scores & Statistics

To me this seems like nothing more than spam. None of these (apart from maybe the usarugby.org one) offers anything of particular value. If anyone objects, they can move it back. Personally, I don't think that this articles needs any external links, as most links would be more appropriate in one of the history articles, or the league or union article. -- Mako 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've delinked the URLs to avoid the pages receiving the google benefit. Skittle 21:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whats the difference ?

This page is a weird amalgamation of league and union. But if you actually think about it (and I could be wrong/crazy lol..but) there is no differnce between the sport of (rugby football, pre-1895) and (rugby union, post-1895)...The actual sport is the same thing...Think about it like this..

Lets refer to pre-1895 rugby as "A", and post-1895 league as "B"...so check this out:

"B" splits from the "A" (RFU) in 1895 to start the RFL..right? If thats true, then what is "A" (RFU) post-1895...? As far as I know union never split from the RFU...so what the hell is rugby footballl?

This page should just list the links to both sports. Its confusing like this, especially for people who dont know a lot about the sports.

Pre 1895 rugby football and post 1895 rugby union are the same sport. Rugby football never died, by 1895 the sport was played in numerous countries, none of the officiating bodies ceased to exist such as the RFU or IRFB and the rules werent changed. The school of rugby where the game originated still plays the same rugby football.

The term 'rugby union' is used to avoid confusion, theres never been an official name change from rugby football to rugby union. The pre 1895 clubs and organistions didn't change their names. The word union isn't found in the IRBs title nor mentioned in 'Rugby World Cup'. The word union is simply a generic term for an organisation. In most countries the sport is referred to simply as rugby, 'rugby union' is only used to differentiate from rugby league in places where rugby league has some popularity, given rugby union is played in over 100 countries and rugby league about 30 union is a coloquial term used in a minority of countries. The term 'rugby union' isn't ever used in languages other than English, its always simply called rugby. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.119.117 (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Rugby football existed before the RFU was formed in 1870. The RFU proved itself a fairly incompetent organisation that failed to take rugby football's popularity in the north (early county cups had crowds higher than the early FA cups) and make it a genuinely global/European game. The rules of the RFU were a compromise between pre-existing rules between pre-existing rugby football clubs. Many rugby league clubs like Bradford Bulls, Hull FC, Huddersfield Giants existed before the RFU was formed and the northern clubs(eventually rugby league clubs) were influential in demanding more points be awarded for tries, so it is hardly a linear position that the RFU, as it was after 1895, was the sole legacy of what rugby football was before the split, or the original creater of the game and so any claim to the RFU being the sole "Rugby" is somewhat specious. Both rugby union and rugby league rules have changed dramatically since 1895 and rugby union rule changes before the split were dramatically influenced by rgby league clubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Of course rugby existed prior to the RFU. By 1895 rugby had expanded beyond England, the RFU wasnt the world governing body. The IRB was formed in 1886 and rugby unions had been formed in many countries. Ive never seen anyone claim the RFU was the original creator or the sole rugby. The facts are however that rugby didn't die in 1895 any suggestion of such is ridiculous. Rugby School, the IRB, the RFU and all the other national unions continued to play rugby, and the name was never changed, rugby union is a term used in a minority of cases and used purely for disambiguation. Obviously the rules have changed dramatically however rugby league doesn't cease to exist and become a new sport every year when the rules are changed, nor so when the super league fiasco was in swing and rugby league in its most important nation was divided in half.

[edit] National sport

Rugby union is the national sport in New Zealand, Wales, South Africa,...

Should South Africa be in this list as the majority play and follow soccer? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and as no-one has objected to your statement I will amend the article. stevendavy

[edit] France?

Why was France removed from the list of countries. They are rather prominent in the sport!Mintguy (T) 10:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Version of this Article

The Italian page is primarily about the union half of rugby football. This page covers both rugby league and union.

[edit] Vandalism

Is that line about that guy regarding the rugby league scrum vandalism? Nothing links to him.--Jeff79 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On Oct 4th, quite a few items were changed on the page, we need to go through and make sure all the changes are fixed (ie. William Webb's name, the photo of the school...) Billy Nair 20:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking through most of the edits, it looks like just reverting to Oct 3 will be best. If you made any edits on the 4th that need to be kept, make sure to redo them. I will try to sift out the legitimate edits and put them in. (After I get home, give the vandal time to get off his computer) Billy Nair 20:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a look through, and although most of the earlier vandalism had been reverted as it occurred, the vandalism in the last day or so had not. I've done this now and it should have all been removed. May pay to read through just in case though. - Shudde ^talk 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. The only "real" changes I saw was the capitalization of Football in the first sentence {Rugby Football, often just "rugby"}, which is a current debate here, and changing {"a fine disregard"} to {"a fine side step round a play then showed great pace down the wing"} which I think seems more appropriate, but since I don't know the real story do not know which should be kept. Billy Nair 19:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flump?

I noticed the first paragraph includes the words 'brass hand flump'. I assume this is a typo for 'pump' but knowing little about Rugby there's always a chance it might be an obscure term familiar to the cognoscenti! I'm reluctant to change it myself, but someone more knowledgeable might like to do so. --Chris Jefferies 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruffians

"Football is a game for gentlemen played by ruffians and rugby is a game for ruffians played by gentlemen" not the other way round. The idea is that football is a game for gentlemen - non-contact, clean - and that rugby is a game for ruffians - tough, dirty - but each group plays the other's 'natural 'game. Jagdfeld (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you've changed the source... the original source at [2] gives the opposite saying, and this is the only one I'm personally familiar with. The idea is that football is a game played by gentlemen (traditionally, anyway) but that the supporters are stereotypically working class "thugs" (or ruffians, if you like). With Rugby, it is the other way round - the players are large hulking men with broken noises wheras the fans are much more upper or middle class, presumably because of the association the sport has with the public school system. Perhaps both versions could be inserted into the article? --81.158.148.64 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Both sources have substantially the same thing.

"Football is a game for gentlemen played by ruffians and rugby is a game for ruffians played by gentlemen"

"The old saying that football is a gentleman's game played by thugs and rugby is a game for thugs played by gentlemen"

The classic version is gentlemen and ruffians - 'thugs' is a lame paraphrase. Fans aren't mentioned. Jagdfeld (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

"In Ireland, rugby union is also associated with private education and the "D4" stereotype, and this image of the spoilt, ignorant, wealthy rugby-playing jock inspired the best-selling Ross O'Carroll Kelly novels." Seems to me that this has a regional bias. I doubt if the inhabitants of Limerick City would agree with it, after all this is a city where the council list rugby first before soccer or GAA Sports.[3]. Or from this more recent document on the Limerick City council website "The City has an honorable sporting tradition and embraces all codes especially rugby. This has a significant economic value for the City and is being exploited as part of its promotion." (Future Image OF Limerick City) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)