Talk:Rugby union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current rugby union collaboration of the fortnight. Please help improve it to featured article standard.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rugby union article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Rugby union is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
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 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 (27 Feb 06 - 23 April 06). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.
This article has had a peer review by the Rugby union WikiProject, which has now been archived.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

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

Please add to and edit this list, strike out completed tasks

Info to add/expand:

  • Field size/markings/grass type/stadiums?
  • Section on popularity?
  • Longer intro
  • Section on attire:jersey(see also: Rugby shirt)/equip(boots, use of gloves, kicking tees)
  • IRB's proposed law changes taking place in South Africa
  • Reduce size of overview.
  • Add a section on the Laws of the Game that summarises Playing rugby union, to briefly include info on:
  • Playing field
  • Players and officials
  • Equipment
  • Scoring
  • Running and kicking game
  • Set pieces
  • Add section on governing bodies
  • Add section on variations, especially rugby sevens

Images:

  • Create image of field w/ markings etc
  • Some more images of games?
  • The playing field.

References and verifiability:

  • References and footnotes where appropriate
  • Inline citations where needed

Resources
Peer review 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.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1/Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Proposed Addition

I would like to propeose that information be added to the origins of the game, it is commonly known that the first rules were put into placeat rugby in england but it is also true that the game was initially introduced by scotttih students studying there i will try to find a reference before adding Duffin1989 18:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC) if any objections please tell me and give reason thank you.

Also information on first international game (Scotland v England) and other firsts. I will post here first

I have never heard this but if it is properly referenced then it should be included.GordyB 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There used to be informatio on the SRU's website, i have not found it yet but will keep looking. Duffin1989 15:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's not true that the game was initally introduced by Scottish students. I am a New Zealander and only played rugby to First Fifteen school-boy level, but I was About.com guide to rugby (until they ditched the site and 300 others when About.com was sold). I also did a site about rugby history at Webseed (they didn't last long) and am top of the rugby union tree at the ODP. A HubPage of mine about the history and origins of rugby union is linked to from the rugby union pager here (I didn't link it!). The article on the HubPage needs upgrading, but has been very popular. I have done a lot of research about this.

I am familiar with the notion that rugby derived from Gaelic football, but I've never come across the notion that Scottish students introduced "the game" to England. One theory is that it derived from an old custom whereby one English village would try to smuggle a piglet into the village square of a nearby village and this would result in a game where the piglet was passed hand to hand rugby style. And then, given the piglet's tendency to run away if it got a chance, a pig's bladder was substituted. Rugby type games have existed since the time of the Romans (at least). What is meant by "the game"? The New Zealand Maori have "running with a ball" type games -- it is a natural thing to do in play. Cavemen probably had similar games.

I'm sorry but I don't buy it and strongly recommend that nothing of the sort is added. The Scottish site may claim one thing, and the Welsh be adamant that it was Welsh Gaelic football that was where it came from; and the English -- most ridiculous of all -- claim that it all started when some kid picked up the ball and ran with it.

There is a women's rugby site that goes with the kid theory but argues that the kid's name was Jane and that she only picked up the ball because it was her ball and her mother was calling. This is just as plausible as most of the other stories. Stunz 03:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mechanics vs. Reasons

There are a few nuances between rugby and other sports of similar look or feel and just knowing the mechanical differences does not usually help you understand the reason why you would do it the way it is done in rugby. Reading this article before I started playing rugby help to a point, then I watched it played in real life and had questions about why players were doing things that seemed counter-intuitive. For example the ruck; it might look an Am. football fan like a fumble recovery. This article says that anyone can pick up the ball (might help to say that person MUST be on their feet) but that a ruck starts after an opponent contests the ball. I think it would be helpful to say why a ruck would ever start, why the ball wouldn't just be fought for like a fumble in Am. football. Also, why after a ruck is started why a team would stop pushing and step away and at other times would continue to push; when a team that seems to have "possession" could lose "possession" and why doesn't someone just jump in and pick it up. The video is more for players learning finer points rather than an outsider trying to understand the game.

Rucks are only one point that are explained how it works and not so much why. I have only played a few months and so I don't know a lot about the strategy, and as a back do not have much chance to be in the rucks other than curled up after a tackle, and I might try to clarify the "why" along the way where I think it might need it. Just understanding the rules does not always mean you understand the game and helping with the "why" should help a lot of fans understand the game better.Billy Nair 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The rugby league article has a playing rugby league article as a split off. I think that this might be a good idea for this article too. There is probably too much detail here for a main article already but not enough to fully explain the game.GordyB 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Billy Nair's points are all completely valid, but having to explain *all* those nuances in a general article would make it huge. -- GWO

I once wrote some articles about these points, but that was some time ago and the Laws relating to rucks have changed. And my own playing experience was in on the wing and so I ran away from rucks to get into position. A couple of points, though: a ruck forms at a "breakdown" when the ball goes to ground. (If the player tackled is held up and on his feet but held (stopped), and the ball is not on the ground it is a "maul"). You need at least two people one from each side involved for it to be a ruck. Otherwise someone can just pick up the ball and off, if noone else is contesting it. I don't understand what you mean by "fought for like a fumble in Am. football", because I don't know enough about Am. football. If at a ruck it is plain that your opponents' have the ball well and truely on their side and it's just a matter of their halfback digging it out before passing to his backs, it makes sense to stop "pushing" and fan out on defence.

A ruck was once called a "loose scrum". It involves usually the forwards raking the ball back to their backs with their feet. You are not allowed to pick the ball out of the ruck (with odd exceptions), and you wouldn't want to try in the old fashioned type ruck in particular. Strange as they may seem, all these rugby techniques developed naturally and are not as counter-intuitive as it may seem. We have to go back to the game in England when there were not real rules and huge numbers of players on each side. It was discovered that when the ball was on the ground a concerted effort involving several or more players binding like a scrum, charging forwards, and raking the ball back with their feet was much more effective than trying to pick it up. Imagine that you are trying to pick the ball up and someone is also trying to rake it back with their foot as they ram you with their shoulder. True, the modern ruck has been so codified and had so many rules applied to it, that what I've just said doesn't really apply any more, but I hope this may be helpful. Still, the article can't be that detailed.

Mind you, I am thinking about doing a rugby site again, and could do the details there for Wikipedia to link to... ;-)

But the rugby rules are extraordinarily complicated, and writing a clear and readable article about them very difficult. Stunz 04:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Stunz, that is some good stuff there, and even though it was short, concise, and well written, I can see how explaining the various reasons for what goes on in the ruck/maul/scrum/etc. could easily end up ridiculously huge. I have learned a lot more about the rules and stuff in rucks and scrums and see that the rules had a lot more to do with the "why" than I first thought (jumping in and grabbing the ball is offsides for example, until you can push their guys back enough to where you have a guy in front of the ball, which is only not offsides if he is binding in the ruck... just watch the cup, you will figure it out, I guess)
As for American Football fumbles, anyone and everyone dives for the ball and curl up on it, and who ever holds it after the ref separates the pile wins possession. No "releasing" rules, no "roll away" rules, just jump in and get it. The use of downs vs dynamic plays is what I attribute to the difference in the rules for recovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyNair (talk • contribs) 03:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking ties

How does a tied knockout tournament match get decided if, after 80 minutes and extra time, there is no winner? I can vaguely remember the commentators talking about a very arcane system of penalties being taken during the 2003 World Cup final, but I don't know any of the details. Googling for variations of 'extra time' and 'rugby union' just gets a lot of references to Australia vs England and no helpful explanations of the procedure. Any help? 88.111.204.13 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the way it's determined is written in law. It may well be different for every tournament. This might be one reason why it's not included here. I would be very surprised if there is a standard method of determining a winner. - Shudda talk 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It varies from tournament to tournament, and is at the discretion of the tournament organisers. The only thing in Law is that players under 19 must not play extra time. In English lower-league competitions at least, the most common tie breakers appear to be
i) Team that scored the most tries wins then
ii) Team that scores the most goals from tries (i.e. converted tries) then
iii) Away side wins (obviously, something else for games at neutral grounds)
-- GWO
If scores are level at full time the match is decides by a seres of penalty kicks taken from various positions on the 22 meter line, with the same system as a penalty shoot out in soccer (best of 5 then sudden death), this is known as a kicking competition. The use of extra time is used at the discretion of the tournament organisers, at professional level it generally consists of 20 minutes extra time before the kicking competion is used, although some competitions, such as the world cup, may add another 10 minutes of extra time after this in which the first side to put points on the board (goal or try) is declared the winner (http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/EN/Home/Tournament+Rules/). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.14.54 (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
NB: The above is for the World Cup. It does not necessarily apply to any other competitions. -- GWO

There is no standard method. The reference to a series of place kicks applies to the 2007 World Cup and is incorrect in that it omits the stages before the kicking competition would take place.

Quote from the official 2007 site: http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/rules/index.html "For quarter final Matches, semi-final Matches, the Bronze Final and the Final, if Teams are tied at fulltime, then the winner shall be determined through the following sequential criteria;

i. Extra time - following an interval of 5 minutes, extra time of 10 minutes each way (with an interval of 5 minutes) shall be played;

ii. Sudden death - if the scores are tied at the conclusion of extra time, and following an interval of 5 minutes, then a further extra time of 10 minutes maximum shall be played. During this period the first Team to score any points shall be declared the winner (sudden death);

iii. Kicking competition - if after this sudden death period no winner can be declared, a kicking competition will be organised between the two Teams as described in the section below. The winner of that competition shall be declared the winner of the Match.

A kicking competition is very unusual in rugby. In the 1995 World Cup if the scores had still been tied after extra time and sudden death time, the All Blacks would have won because they had better tournament record than South Africa. I believe, from memory, it was because the South African team had had a man sent off, their record -- there were very complicated rules -- was deemed worse.

The Super 14 uses a complicated set of rules that I won't attempt to list from memory. But if there has been a round robin competition before the knockout stage ties are usually decided (if a provision for extra time or sudden death doesn't find a winner) by the followiing methods, not necessarily in this order.

1. The result of the individual game between the two teams at the round robin stage. 2. The number of tries scored in the individual game between the two tied teams. 3. The number of wins in the round robin section of the competition. 4. The points for and against in the round robin section of the competition. 5. The number of tries scored in the round robin section of the competition. 6. Fewest players sent off or sin-binned in the round robin section of the competition. 7. Whatever else you can think of and then toss a coin. Stunz 02:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing article

Can anyone explain the rules in a better way? The video link helps though.Superplaya 08:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the laws are simply complex and difficult to pick up without actively studying them. Specifically which parts of the article could do with a re-write?GordyB 10:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell what needs re-write. It may be the best that can be explained but without the video it's hard to get. But what does it mean by The ball can be passed in-line or backwards, but cannot travel forward? How do you score if you can't take the ball forward?Superplaya 05:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In simple terms, you move the ball forward by kicking it or running with it in hand. Passing doesn't move the ball forward, it's merely a means of swapping possession from one player to another (somewhat akin to the lateral in gridiron) in the hope that someone will eventually be able to make forward progress. Does that help? - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are a typical stupid fucking American! It's simple to understand dipshit! You can't pass the ball forward! Simple really! Wake up to yourself and realise that gridiron is shit! Stop comparing the game they play in heaven to it! 203.171.193.145 (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And you need to wash out your moth and review Wikipedia's Five pillars, specifically that relating to treatment of your fellow wikipedians. I have played, or followed, the game of rugby union for well over 40 years and if I've learnt one thing in all that time it's that rugby is NOT is simple: even what constitutes a forward pass is open to debate. I also, for the record, happen to enjoy American football. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking the ball forward and passing the ball forward are two different things.In american football you can do both but whereas in [[[rugby Union]] you can only pass the ball back --Cometstyles 08:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In terms that someone more familiar with American football would understand, lateral passes are allowed but forward passes are never allowed. The ball can be carried forwards as in American football.GordyB 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So to score you always have to run in it in the end zone? I get it now, but shouldn't the sentence be like the ball can be passed in line, backwards but not forward.Superplaya 04:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked the article, it does state that all passes should be backwards or lateral. To score, you need to actually touch the ball down (hence 'touchdown') rather than merely have the ball cross into the endzone. See Comparison of American football and rugby union.GordyB 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The ball cannot travel in a direct line (laterally) only backwards, and you score a try (not touchdown) when one part of the ball hits the ground on or over the tryline, and before the dead ball line (the end zone) Travsuth 06:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The term 'touchdown' is used in rugby to refer to the grounding of the ball, secondly you are wrong about lateral passes, they are 100% legal. The laws don't allow 'throw-forwards' (as defined by how the ball leaves the hands of the thrower), they don't say anything about 'flat passes' that are neither forwards nor backwards.GordyB11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You're spot on about forward passes. However, the IRB and the Laws consistently use the word 'grounding', as opposed to 'touchdown', when talking about how to score tries. -- Captain Pedantic (aka GWO)
I was using terms that an American would find easy to understand 'touchdown' is used in American football as is 'lateral'. I don't think many rugby fans say 'lateral' either.GordyB 18:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Of Course he is spot on about the forward passes, everyone knows that. I aint ever heard anyone refer to a try as a touchdown, and I have been playiong Rugby for 15 years in South Africa and Australia, (I live in Australia) Travsuth 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Touchdown!=Try. Touchdown in rugby refers to the act of grounding the ball though it is not a term specifically referred to in the laws.GordyB15:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"Touchdown!=Try" meaning "Touchdown does not equal try"? Yes in Rugby they do use the term "Touchdown" but it is more like an american football's touchback (I am thinking that is what you are saying grounding is in rugby, in amFootball grounding is the QB throwing the ball to avoid a sack), oh the horror of it all.Billy Nair 05:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Superplaya that from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the game, the article does not do a good enough job of explaining how rugby is actually played. I'm not talking about the fine details of the rules. I mean that reading this article does not provide an adequate picture of what rugby actually looks like, although it certainly has improved.

Try to think of this from the perspective of someone who is not familiar with the sport. You scroll past the descriptions of the playing field, the position names, the attire, the officials, the coin toss, game length and scoring values. Then we get to the part called "The running game," which finally is to explain what actually happens when the ball is in play. The first two sentences are straightforward enough, but the text then starts talking about the "scrum," "knock-on," "ruck," "maul," etc., even though those terms aren't defined until later in the article.

What needs to be explained before any of this is that rugby consists mostly of teams trying to advance the ball toward the opponents' goal by running with the ball and by tossing it sideways and backwards to each other, as well as by punting it down the field. You need to explain right away that there is no interference blocking -- that is, that everyone on the team with the ball has to be behind the ball-carrier, or whatever the rule is. You need to explain whether this running and passing is scripted (as in American football) or spontaneous. Then you can get into the breakdown and discuss how the other team tries to tackle the ball-carrier.

This article has long lacked an adequate explanation of the strategy involved in the sport. Fortunately, a section has been put in about the kicking game, although it suffers from mentioning line-outs before line-outs have been defined. (At the very least, it should say "see below" after the mention of line-outs.) What it still doesn't say is why teams would ever attempt a penalty kick or drop goal when you only get 3 points compared to 5 for a try. I also don't understand how, with few stoppages of play, players communicate to each other what they are going to do next.

Some of the language is unclear to me. For example, I don't get the sentence, "If a kick goes directly into touch and the kicker is outside his own 22m line the throw-in occurs where the ball was kicked." By "directly into touch," does that mean on the fly (without bouncing)? And does "outside his own 22m line" mean between his own goal line and the 22 or between the 22 and the other team's goal? Even something as simple as the mention that line-outs are thrown in by "the team that did not play the ball into touch" can be confusing. I suppose this means that if team X is the last to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds, team Y gets the throw-in. (For one thing, no where in the article does it say definitively that "in touch" means "out of bounds.")

This article has come a long way but is still too hard to grasp. Perhaps you should try to attract North American rugby players -- who would know what it's like to have to learn the game from scratch -- to help make the article more accessible to readers from countries where the sport is rarely on TV. -- Mwalcoff 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work. However I think making so many comparisons with American Football would be a complete mistake. Rugby is probably more widely played then American football, so for someone from, say Germany, making the comparison is of no value. As well, saying what rugby is not, should be avoided where possible. This is because it is not a lot of things; better to say exactly what it is. If that makes sense (probably not! ;) ). - Shudda talk 10:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If you understand American Football then you should look at this>>Comparison of American football and rugby union to better understand the differences between both the sports and in answering some of the questions above..the running and passing isnt scripted it is up to the players and sometimes its better to take the 3 points(Penalty Kick) on offer then to try to go for the try because sometimes the defense of the opposition is strong and its better to get some points for your team rather then pushing for a try which might not eventuate and regarding the sentence "If a kick goes directly into touch and the kicker is outside his own 22m line the throw-in occurs where the ball was kicked."simply means that the kicker should be inside the 22m mark be4 kicking and if he is outside the 22m and he kicks "on the full"(which means the ball doesnt bounce inside the field but goes into touch and as you said " fly (without bouncing)" into touch. and the 22m refers to his own goal line and the 22....--Cometstyles 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I was using American football references because that's where I'm coming from, but obviously the article should be written in a way that someone unfamiliar with both rugby and American football could understand it. It is likely, though, that many, if not most, of the people who come to the rugby union page on the English Wikipedia seeking to learn the basics of the sport will be from North America, so some American football comparisons would be worthwhile. By the way, if you add the populations of the UK, Ireland, France, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa together, you still have fewer people than live in the U.S. So it's not quite accurate to say rugby is more widely played than American football is. Not that that's really relevant to this discussion, but I like to point it out :) -- Mwalcoff 00:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, by widely played I did mean geographically. Although playing numbers may be closer then you think. The article certainly needs work, thats for sure. - Shudda talk 01:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if more people played rugby than American football, since organized American football requires hundreds of dollars of equipment and months or years of training. -- Mwalcoff 01:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
More people do play Rugby then American Football and the countries you have mentioned above is just some of the tier 1 nations but if you add the tier 2 and 3 nations as well it crosses well over 2 billion(people who enjoy rugby) and anywayz its only North America that plays American Football and recently it was reported that Rugby World Cup is the third biggest event in the world with a televison Audience of well over 3 billion in the 2003 world cup and is third only behind the Summer Olympics and the Soccer world cup and rugby is definetly a more tougher sport then American football because looking at the amount of armor worn by American Football Players I always wonder how they get hurt and Suffer concusions (pretty weak players I suppose..hehe) but any ways the only reason that American Footbal is regarded as a Superior sport than rugby(By Americans) is because of the amount of money paid to each players and they are paid millions whereas Rugby players are barely paid in thousands let alone 100's of thousands and I know of only about half a dozen players paid in millions and apart from soccer Rugby is the only other fastest growing sport in the world and the irony is that USA hold the gold medal in Rugby at the 1920s(not sure about the year) Olympic games which was the last time rugby was played at the Olympics...(weird heh)..--Cometstyles 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
One, I never said one sport is "superior" to another. Two, it's hardly worth counting "tier 2" countries as rugby countries; the U.S. is supposedly a "tier 2" country, according to the article on the International Rugby Board. Three, the 3.5 billion figure is a (very suspect) cumulative total for all 48 games of the RWC; this page says the RWC final had "only" 23 million viewers worldwide, or one-fourth the viewership of that year's Super Bowl. Four, anyone who visits this page is probably interested in and looking to know more about rugby; insulting their other favorite sports is hardly very welcoming. Five, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Six, I dare you to go up to Dick Butkus or Lawrence Taylor and tell him American football players are weak. And seven, see punctuation. -- Mwalcoff 03:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is getting completely off topic. My point was that due to American Football being rarely played outside North America making too many comparisons between the two in the article will be of limited value. I'd prefer if we try to write it in a way that means no comparison is necessary. If you would like to read more about the Rugby World Cup do read it's article. It's FA at the moment (and should stay that way), and quite well done (I didn't write it, lol) - Shudda talk 03:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Wat?? I neva said any thing about Superiority of one sport its you who said "By the way, if you add the populations of the UK, Ireland, France, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa together, you still have fewer people than live in the U.S. So it's not quite accurate to say rugby is more widely played than American football is." which form my POV meant that you were comparing the two sports and all I was saying was that Rugby is played in over 90 countries and American Football in only 1and secondly, tier 2 countries seem to be getting better by the Year and soon they might be in contention of winning the world Cup and thirdly, I meant the 3.5 Billion television viewers over the whole duration of the tournament and not only the Grand Final and fourthly, I neva insulted American Football all I said was the hype that comes with American Football is something which I dont get i.e the players are paid in millions of dollars and that USA has the best medical centres and companies in the world and they still cant design an armor which can withstand the tackles and I was just comparing because in Rugby Player hardly wear any form of armor and they go through rougher tackles and still manage to stay injury free which is uncommon in American Football with the amount of armor they wear and fifthly I was actually Complementing USA because they are the Last team 2 Ever win the Gold Medal in rugby at the Olympics which is Quite Amazing and lastly I'am not writing an Article, this is a talk page and punctuations arent compulsory and in reply to Shudda, I agree this is getting off topic and my style of describing something sometimes is not understood by others and I cant help it but its easier if we dont compare the 2 Sports because in their way they are completely Different and I actually forgot to write that American Football was actually derived from Rugby as well as Canadian Football, Aussie Rules, Rugby League and Sevens and if you want to better understand rugby You should watch Sevens Rugby because thats how I started and If you are able to understand Sevens rugby, you would easily understand XV's..Cheers(yikes I nearly wrote an article)--Cometstyles 03:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just trying to make a little joke. I shouldn't have gone there. -- Mwalcoff 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to know who removed some of the external links and why. One that I submitted was a link to a union in the United States. I would like to know why my link was removed, but an English club directory remains. Is this some sort of Euro snobbery? Why not create another subsection of external links dedicated to different unions and teams. I know that where some of you live it's easy to find a game, however in the United States it takes a bit more work, and finding links at the bottom of this article that might point folks in the right direction. Steamdonkey 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who removed the link. However links to individual clubs and unions is not something that should be included in the page. The reason is that the number is enormous, imagine if every club, or union had a link on the page. I think the reason the English clubs link is here is because it's a directory (rather then a link to one specific club). Although it should maybe be removed. I don't think you'll find there is much Euro-snobbery around, many of the contributors to this page are not European. - Shudda talk 23:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I have moved it, I don't think country specific sites should be linked to from the main page.GordyB 15:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


If I get time I will have a go at this article. Missing from both it and the comparison with American Football is an explanation of the concept of "on/off side" in rugby. To be onside in rugby you must not be in front of the player in your own team who has the ball. If, say, a player in your team kicks the ball forward and you are in front of him when he does so, you may not handle the ball until he has drawn level with you. If you do so you are offside and will be penalised. So the prohibition of forward passes is just, in a way, a part of the offside Law.

You score a try by grounding the ball behind the opponents' try (goal) line. To ground the ball a player who is not in an offside position must put downward pressure on the ball with some part of his body between the neck and the waist. You can't ground it with your leg (but you certainly can with your arm or hand). You can't ground it with your head either, but you can ground it with your chest (bugger, I've forgotten whether you can use your back). I'll have to check this.

You score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents' in-goal area, which includes the goal line. A try can also be scored by grounding the ball in the field-of-play and up against a goal post (and pad). This is because the goal posts form part of the goal line (Laws 1 and 9). Cheers.Brendan Fitzgerald 04:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby Union Stats - Highest Points List

Is there a Highest Points Scorers List on Wikipedia? I've had a look and dont seem to be able to find one - can anyone advise? If not, is there any chance of getting one compiled? Would be interesting to see, especially with World Cup coming up. Twintwenty 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Highest points in what? Test matches? First grade? World Cup matches? - Shudda talk 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Internationals, I'd guess. Last time I looked, that list started: 1090 – Neil Jenkins (1049 points for Wales, 41 for the Lions)
1010 – Diego Dominguez (27 points for Argentina, 983 for Italy)
967 – Andrew Mehrtens (New Zealand)
911 – Michael Lynagh (Australia)
906 – Jonny Wilkinson (859 points for England, 47 for the Lions)
878 – Matt Burke (Australia)
be hard to keep up to date, though -- GWO
I did add the points and rankings before but someone deleted and it would be a good idea to create one similar to Super rugby, List of Super Rugby records...--Cometstyles 09:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Playing rugby union

I've copied relevant sections to a new article. The idea is that various sections of this article need to be summarised. Any help appreciated.GordyB 12:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I Agree to the split...----Cometstyles 17:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Too much data has been taken out of this page. If anyone think something should be re-inserted then please go ahead.GordyB 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] girls playing rugby.

i don't understand why guys playing rugby is more popular than girls,they should make a world cup for girls too

Good idea. They could call it the Women's Rugby World Cup. I'll get right on it. -- GWO

and they could actually use the idea of mixing the teams123.100.123.33 04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)iunisi

At some junior levels you do get mixed teams. At senior level ... somehow, I don't see this happening ;) -- GWO

yeah...but it should be popular as men playing rugby.USER:Iunisi

Why?GordyB 09:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I heard in the Netherlands it is common to have mixed sex teams for rugby ill have to find out GRSL2005 03:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

I know this has been discussed before, but I believe the article title should be "Rugby Union" (and by the same token, Rugby League) as it is a proper noun (a single, particular thing) and according to Wikipedia naming conventions (specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)) it should be capitalized, e.g. "Which type of rugby do you play, Rugby League or Rugby Union? A simple example is the White House. --Deon Steyn 12:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See also en example of capitalized use in an encyclopaedia article: [1]. --Deon Steyn 12:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A proper noun is not a single, particular thing that is a concrete noun - concrete nouns aren't capitalised as a rule. You don't sleep in a Bed or eat from a Table. Rugby union is not a concrete noun either, it's uncountable rather than a singular for one. White House is a title, rugby union is the name of a sport. A link to an incorrect definition on the Internet doesn't prove anything.GordyB 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I repeat what I posted on the rugby league talk page.

Rugby is the name of a town and therefore takes a capital letter, the version of football played at that school also does since it clearly derives from the name of the town (and school). The Rugby Football Union and Rugby Football League take capitals because they are titles of organisations. The Rugby League was and is a variant of the RFL though it is rarely used these days. It is also correct to speak of the different Rugby Unions (ARU, RFU, WRU etc). It is not normal to capitalise the names of sports tennis, golf, soccer, cricket etc all take the lower case; the exceptions are those that derive from nationality or language adjectives e.g. Australian football; Gaelic football; American football. Some people argue that rugby union and league should also be treated the same, but this means that only the 'R' would be capitalised in any case. It is also true that you would need to write Rugby ball and Rugby shirt to be consistant and few people believe this to be correct. It is also the case that where a name derives from a placename but there is no longer a strong association then no capital letter is used e.g. hamburger comes from Hamburg but we don't capitalise it because there no longer is any meaningful relationship between Hamburg and hamburgers.GordyB 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't concern concrete (clearly irrelevant here) or abstract nouns, a proper noun does in fact refer to a single particular thing. [2]. I think the problem here is the context in which the term is used, because we can use it to refer to a general sport, but in some cases when we refer to the actual unique sporting code (as it is used in the cited encyclopaedia) it would constitute a proper noun, as in this example where the capitalization of "earth" depends on the context: [3]. --Deon Steyn 06:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
When you guys have finished with this fascinating and relevant debate, could you help me decide how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Look, no-one writes "Soccer" with a capital 'S', and that describes a "thing" just as much as "Rugby union" Thanks -- GWO
Rugby union isn't a proper noun, it is a common noun. It's not a title, it is a name.GordyB 09:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this argument, you say it's not a title, but a name, but names are proper nouns? Also, did no one look at the example where earth can be either, depending on context? --Deon Steyn 11:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I spent five years teaching English grammar. I am aware that the rules on capitalisation depend on context and I am also aware that some people think "Rugby Union" is correct. If I went on the evidence of my local cafe then "tea's" is the correct plural for tea, in this generation merely showing that a particular usage can be found on the Internet doesn't make it correct. No dictionary will show "rugby union" as wrong and no dictionary will ever say that sports are proper nouns. If this was the case then golf, tennis, soccer etc would be capitalised, no dictionary will ever list them as capitalised.
A title has some official backing e.g. the Rugby Football Union (RFU) is capitalised because it is the title of an organisation; "Rugby Union" sometimes refers to the RFU and is a title. Rugby union (no capitalisation) is the name of a sport.GordyB 17:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, the reference I have provided is of a dictionary, not some arbitrary site on the internet. Furthermore, this dictionary entry specifically uses "rugby" (all lower case) to refer to the sport, but "Rugby League" and "Rugby Union" (upper case) to refer to the codes. This is certainly a reputable source and proves my point or at the very least that it isn't straightforward. The sport is rugby (in both cases), but the different codes that evolved (that could also be used just as a sport). I'm not saying all sports are proper noun and using this as an example to prove your point is a logical fallacy called proof by example. --Deon Steyn 07:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The "codes" are different sports as recognised by everybody. Neither the RFU, RFL or anybody else would claim different. Nor does anybody say that rugby union is a proper noun or any dictionary list "rugby union" as incorrect.GordyB 11:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No dictionary lists "earth" as a proper noun either, but it can be used as such in which case it is capitalized. --Deon Steyn 06:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's just get some third party opinion to sort it out quickly so that we don't waste more time on it? Not sure where though... WP:RFC? --Deon Steyn 11:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Grammar and Usage is another of my interest -- ahead of rugby, actually. In English if you are doing tests what's correct is what your teacher says is "correct" otherwise it's not a very useful word. There is no academy in English to say what is correct and what isn't. The standards are set by those who are the acknowledged masters of the language or have some sort of particular prestige. The dictionaries are based on "descriptive" principles, which means that they record what people say, not "prescribe" what people ought to say.


Both Encarta and Britannica capitalise Rugby Union and Rugby League, but not rugby.

Encarta: "The form of rugby officially designated as Rugby Union is played in more than 100 countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, England, France, Italy, Fiji, and South Africa." http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574167/Rugby_Football.html

Quote from Britannica: "Major Team and Individual Sports

Development of Rugby League. ...Rugby League professionals are different from other sports professionals in that they do not devote full time to the game but hold other jobs. They are paid a fee for matches. (Differences in rules and play between Rugby Union and League are discussed below under Play of the game.)

Development of game.

Although it has been played in other parts of the British Isles, such as southern Wales and the London area, the professional Rugby League game...The League game has also taken firm root in France, Australia, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea. Like Rugby Union, the League game in France is ... In Australia the main centres of the game are Sydney and Brisbane, though it is widely played in cities and towns throughout the country and has a larger following than has Rugby Union. In New Zealand the game is less firmly established than Rugby Union, but... As a partly professional game, requiring a steady intake of money from gate receipts, Rugby League has been ahead of Rugby Union in developing along...Rugby League was also ahead of Rugby Union in introducing laws to curb the stagnation of repeated kicks over the touchline."

While capitilization is one of the most variable and debatable features of English -- there simply are no firm rules or standards that are universially followed -- our doing it the same way that Britannica and Encarta do it would not go amiss. The way the titles are at the moment is risible. For heaven's sake let's at least capitalize the titles so we are not a laughing stock.

NB: rugby shirt, rugby ball, rugby team, etc, is not logically comparable to Rugby Union. Rugby in those instances is an adjective. Still, whether terms are adjectives, proper nouns, etc is less important than convention. The only reliable rule of English grammar is that all of the other rules all have exceptions to them and only work about 90% of the time.

My $0.02, if anyone cares... football (soccer), the sport that started it all, that all the successive sports still call themselves at some point (listen to the announcers in the current RWC, they refer to the players as footballers) includes, but not limited to: American rules Football, Canadian rules Football, Rugby rules Football, all referring to the location that particular style of play started or is used. Since you don't type "american football" you might then capitalize "Rugby Football" which has now been shortened to Rugby with the "... rules Football" part of it truncated. But at the same time, you don't just say, "Hey, lets go play american" if you were going to go play that style of football, where Rugby, unless you were within driving distance of the actual place is most likely referring to the sport. So my theory is this, "Rugby" is the shortened version of "Rugby rules Football" therefore it is a proper noun, referring to the city it originated, thus should be capitalized. Billy Nair 04:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That's based on a false premise. Soccer did not "start it all" in any shape or form. Nobody ever says "Rugby rules football" either.GordyB 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that rugby started in Rugby when William Webb Ellis picked the ball up during a "soccer" game. But on further reading I see that it was not really soccer, but another type of football (Gaelic maybe?), either way, the game takes it's name from the town of Rugby, and that was the point of my argument. Billy Nair 19:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
No form of football had been codified at that point and that includes soccer, see football for the history. As for capitalisation hamburgers are named after Hamburg but the convention is not to capitalise the "h". Rugby is no different.GordyB 21:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Capitalization of title

This is a dispute about the capitalization of the title, which according to according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) would be determined by whether "rugby union" would constitute a proper noun or not. The result would also have a bearing the Rugby league article.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • I believe in this context (an article on this particular single sporting code) it would constitute a proper noun, similar to the way it is used in this encyclopaedia entry: [4]. Another example of a word's capitalization depending on context: [5] -- Deon Steyn 12:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Both encarta and the Compact Oxford list it as lower case [6],

[7]. This has been debated in the past and it has been agreed to use lower case and this has been encorporated in the manual of styles of both the union and league wikiprojects. Capitalisation is not correct for reasons that I have posted earlier in the page.GordyB 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment
  • Keep it as it is. Lower case for the sport, like football, tennis, squash and badminton. Capitalised for governing bodies (Welsh Rugby Union, Rugby Football Union) etc. -- GWO
  • Not involved in the dispute but the sport is referred to almost universally without a capital. Should be no different here. - Shudda talk 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization is not "correct"? Who decides what is "correct" and not "correct"?

Contrary to what is said above Encarta capitalise it in their articles. So does the Encyclopedia Britannica. Will those giving us dictionary entries please stop. You are only making it plain that you don't understand the issue.

Find me articles in reputable and prestigious publications -- like Encyclopedia Britannica -- to back your contention. Stunz 06:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mate. I taught English grammar for five years, don't tell me I don't understand it. I don't use articles, I use dictionaries for a perfectly good reason. Dictionaries tell you what is considered correct usage and what is not. As for who decides - there is a reason why people buy dictionaries perhaps you should reflect on that.GordyB 10:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have found one myself: the BBC uses lower case -- rugby union, and rugby league...

Hmmmmm... Stunz 06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I read a hell of a lot of rugby related literature (whether it be books or newspaper articles) and I rarely see rugby union referred to as Rugby Union. - Shudda talk 11:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headgear

Headgear ("scrum caps") are not made from plastic, as this would cause injury to opponents.213.137.7.37 11:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Vaughan

Hi all. Once again my apologies for blundering in and ignoring protocols. I edited the sections on protective gear, boots, headgear, etc., because they were, in places, wrong or misleading. I am a referee and have given presentations on the Laws relating to player apparel. This is my first attempt at doing anything in Wikipedia and I was not aware of the niceties - I just saw the stuff that was wrong. I hope the wording I have used is suitable. Cheers.  :-) Brendan Fitzgerald 12:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that you will have upset anybody. Usually it is only necessary to make a comment in the talk page if your edit is likely to be controversial, but it does help if you add four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your comment as this "signs" it for you.GordyB 11:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of protective gear, how does a mouthguard prevent concussion? In all my years of playing rugby, they were rather useless at preventing blows to the head, given their location in the mouth. Can anyone provide some credible source to substantiate it, because first hand experience tells me this is simply not the case. I've been concussed numerous times, and the bit of plastic wedged between my teeth did nothing to help me. 80.72.157.154 09:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Google "mouthguard concussion" and you will find plenty of references, the very first one provides a simple explanation: [8]. Also note Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --Deon Steyn 07:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I modified a reference to point to the right place on the IRB web site for a list of approved equipment. Also added a reference to regulation 12 regarding pads. Martelrkm (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A load of prolate spheroids

How come Wikipedia uses the term 'prolate spheroid' a couple of dozen times in relation to the ball used in rugby-related football codes but Britannica doesn't at all, preferring to use 'oval'? Perhaps a prolate spheroid needs to be surgically removed from some Wikipedians. The term seems to have been brought into sport by American football coach John Heisman over a century ago; he was a Shakespearean actor who liked using phrases like that in coaching, I think for intentional humorous effect. It doesn't work on Wikipedia. Rexparry sydney 10:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oval isn't accurate though, an oval is a two dimensional shape.GordyB 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. In mathematics an oval is two-dimensional, but in everyday contexts it means 'egg-shaped'. This is the first definition in the Macquarie Dictionary for 'oval'. Cheers, Rexparry sydney 11:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
'Egg-shaped' is "ovoid" in 3-dimensions and "oval" in 2. Oval is also a very vague description.GordyB 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Dictionaries don't agree with you. Oval = 'shaped like an egg' and 'elliptical closed curve; thing with oval outline' (Oxford). You've previously cited dictionaries, but now you're arguing against them. Saying "oval is also a very vague" = POV. Everyone understands what is meant by 'oval ball'. The accuracy you are striving for by using 'prolate spheroid' is a spurious accuracy, like giving a Frenchman directions to the station by saying it is 6.437376 km away. The lead section of a Wikipedia article "should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article", and polysyllabic jargon is a barrier not an aid to this aim. It's appropriate to use 'prolate spheroid' in a detailed paragraph on the ball later in the article, but there's not a professional editor worth their salt in a English-language publishing house who would not change it to oval or egg-shaped or elliptical or ovoid in the introductory paragraph of a non-technical article for general readers, following the principle of 'prefer the simple to the complex' rather than 'demonstrate the author's extreme cleverness'. Rgds, Rexparry sydney 23:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Dictionaries don't specify the dimensions, if you read oval then you will see that quite a lot of different shapes can be described as "oval". A rugby ball is "obviously oval" if you have seen one before. Prolate spheroid is a more complex term but it is precise and it is linked an article which explains exactly what ther term means.GordyB 11:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
To answer the question: (i) When someone says "prolate spheroid" many people would have to look it up. In Britannica this is hard, in Wikipedia its one simple mouse click. So you can be accurate without requiring extra work. (ii) Ellipsoid has a very precise meaning defined by foci, which a rugby ball doesn't fit and "egg shaped" is flat out wrong. A great many eggs (hen's eggs most notably) are fatter at one end than the other. Having said all that, the IRB says its "oval". (Law 2.1, 2007 Laws) -- GWO —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:12:12, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
Having had no further commment, and given the precedent of deferring to IRB terms (i.e. position names) I'm going to change the word to oval, with a wiki link to prolate spheroid. -- GWO 17:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ha, I wondered why it was "oval" this time around. I came to this article to remember what that shape was called, and it was gone, bah, "I liked the OLD Tigger better..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyNair (talk • contribs) 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did trys begin to score five points instead of four?

Watching old highlight reels from the 1987 and 1991 Rugby World Cups, I noticed that trys were scored as four points rather than five, as they are scored today. When did this scoring change take place, and why? I'd love to see it mentioned in the history section.--Kharker 04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It changed in order to make it more worthwhile to score trys, and thus encourage attacking rugby, rather than the attritional "keep hold of the ball, wait for the opposition to infringe then kick the penalty." (Which was also the reason for the introduction of the free kick (rather than a penalty) for technical offenses). According to the rec.sport.rugby-union FAQ, this happened in 1992. Trys had been worth 4 since 1971 -- this table shamelessly ripped from that document (GFM is a "goal from mark")
             Try Con Pen D/G GFM
until 1891    1   2   2   3   3  points
1891 to 1893  2   3   3   4   4  points
1893 to 1905  3   2   3   4   4  points
1905 to 1948  3   2   3   4   3  points
1948 to 1971  3   2   3   3   3  points
1971 to 1977  4   2   3   3   3  points
1977 to 1992  4   2   3   3   -  points
1992 onwards  5   2   3   3   -  points

-- GWO 06:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby Union worldwide

"Rugby union has established itself as a relatively popular sport in only a handful of countries. The total number of registered players in the world is about two to three million, well under the 270 million for Association Football. [5] Rugby is the national sport of New Zealand, Wales and a handful of Pacific Island nations."

Very POV and Weasel word sentiments here. Most likely inserted by someone who doesn't particularly like Rugby (Union) as they see the world cup is in progress. Do other successful sports such as Cricket, Baseball or tennis have these sorts of irrelevant comparisoms to football on their pages? This paragraph tells you nothing of the world wide spread of Rugby and is clearly meant to denigrate the sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.117.126 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Other than the unnecessary reference to soccer (will delete), I think it is entirely true.GordyB 21:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying the information is false. It is just very biased. If writing an article on baseball would you say "baseball is not remotely popular in most of the world, and has far fewer players than football".

As it stood the article mentioned nothing of where Rugby was actually played, (apart from Oceania). It consisted of three sentances ALL of which insinuated that Rugby is less popular than the reader probably thinks it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.117.126 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Some data seems to have been lost by vandalism, I will try to restore what was there previously. However "Rugby draws large crowds in Madagascar!" - you cannot be serious.GordyB 21:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, rugby can draw large crowds in Madagascar for the national team. But that's not particularly relevant here. What matters is getting a balanced paragraph. I edited the article before because it was unfair on Rugby. Ironically the paragraph you replaced it with (I know you didn't write it originally) goes too far in the opposite direction, Rugby is not a major sport in Canada or Romania. But at least this one actually tells you where rugby is played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.117.126 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the USA be mentioned in this paragraph among the nations that play? Obviously its not as widely played as in England, France, NZ, Australia, South Africa, etc. but if we're going to mention that its "growing in Italy" then we ought to mention that its growing in the USA. They have been to 4 of the 5 World Cups and their team is improving.Jordancda 04:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, guys. Sorry I have blundered into the Rugby Union page (capitalised because it's a title!!!!) in my first attempt to do anything in Wikipedia. My apologies if I have broken every protocol under the sun. Having been involved in rugby in quite a few countries, I have edited the description of who plays to be more accommodating and less dismissive of the minor nations. I hope you do not violently disagree. Cheers. Brendan Fitzgerald 12:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Names of positions.

Just a niggle, because this always annoys me. The names used in the diagram of positions are only widely used in the northern hemisphere. I know there are a lot of slang terms for them, but the ones I'm suggesting are far more prevalent than that. They are used in all commentary in New Zealand Australia, the Pacific, and I assume English speaking South Africa.

  1. 9: Halfback (rather than scrum half)
  2. 10: First five eights (fly half)
  3. 12: Second five eights (inside center)
  4. 13: Center (outside center).

I'm not saying the names used are incorrect but they are far from universally accepted. If it is possible the diagram could say something like "Scrum Half/Half back".

I dunno, maybe everyone whose edited this page so far is from England and only uses the ones already given, or maybe I'm being NZ-centric (though im sure for once the aussies will agree)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.43.166 (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The terms used here are ones considered to be "standard" by the IRB. There are dozens of variations especially for number 10 which is commonly called "outside half" in Britain and "outhalf" in Ireland. It is impossible to list all the variants which is why only the IRB ones are used here.GordyB 11:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I dispute the notion the the terms above are used in "all comentary in australia. In australia the existing terms are in fact far more popular. Certainly Fly Half is the most used term for the No 10 position in australia (with five eighth a close second and "first five eight" almost unheard of. 12 is UNIVERSALLY reffered to as "inside centre" here and 13 is always "outside centre". I think there is some argment for "halfback" but scrumhalf still enjoys majority use. 58.179.4.69 (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draws

What happens in a draw, Why is there not any mention of draws in Rugby Union? AJUK Talk!! 19:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends. In a league, it goes down as a draw, in a knock out competition there are a lot of ways to decide who wins, and it's up to the competition organiser to pick one and put it in the competition rules. Common options include:
  • Extra time / overtime
  • Team that scored the most tries (with the team that kicked the most conversions as an additional tie break)
  • Team that received the fewest red/yellow cards.
  • Away side is the winner (i.e. visiting side, road team)
GWO 07:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rules

It would be nice to have an article about the rules in rugby. I haven't played for twenty years and it would be nice to know how and why the rules changed over the years. In particular the changes to points awarded for tries, drop kicks etc. and from when it was allowed for one member of the line-out to lift another. Obviously most of these changes have been made to improve the flow of the game, and thus the attractiveness. TinyMark 09:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd add one more reason for the changes -- safety: this is particularly apparent in the case of the scrummaging; the various new engage sequences, proscribed body angles, binding positions, preventing wheeling... etc. Oh, and officially you're still not allowed to lift in the line-out, except of course, you can, and everyone can see it. -- GWO —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tonight is the Big Night

Tonight will be the 'Hundred Years War' all over again in Paris. But do we ever ask why a Rugby ball is oval as opposed to round.

When Englishman Ellis picked up the ball and ran, presumably he ran with a round ball. Who's idea was it to change the ball to an oval shape?

Will England beat France in France since it is an English game? Arthur Spool 14:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

England would have to playing France to beat France. England are playing South Africa having beaten France.
AFAIK the ball has always been oval, they did briefly try a round ball in the other code of rugby but it wasn't popualr as it made passing harder.GordyB 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. I've just read the papers and I see that England were playing South Africa and not France. I'm so dumb I've got no choice now but to go away and shoot myself. Arthur Spool 11:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense vandalism

There is assorted nonsense scattered around the article. I've fixed a few of the most blatent. but as an American who doesn't know anything about Rugby, I'm afraid to touch some. (I fixed things like "a karate chop to the opponents left knee scores four points" in the overview section.) Still in Overview is "a successfull kick at goal is worth 15 points", which I know is wrong, but I don't know the right point value. I also doubt that a try is worth "five and a half points". In Equipment, there is "A player under 23 years of age must wear a pocket protector." I don't know if there is a rule that requires under-23 players to wear an athletic protector, or if the entire sentence is rubbish. Jmkasunich (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Rugby union has established itself as a highly popular sport, particularly in"

According to Wikipedia:When to cite "Material that should be removed without discussion includes contentious material about a living person, clear examples of original research, and anything that is ludicrous or damaging to the project." The statement "Rugby union has established itself as a highly popular sport, particularly in..." does not fit this criteria. I would even go so far as to say that it does not require a citation as, according to Wikipedia:When to cite "Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true." If someone wants to challenge this, it's better to do it here then to continue removing content without discussion. - Shudde talk 09:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. That edit was simply idiotic -- an application of a rule with no regard to sense. -- GWO (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
If nothing else, "highly" needs to be removed without a cite. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Did this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Professional Rugby

As an American soccer fan I have devoted a large portion of the last three or four years of my life to understanding all of the various competitions (club, club international, international) of professional soccer. It took a while to sort out but with the help of wikipedia I was able to do it and now have a huge understanding of how all of these competitions work in addition to my love for the sport. Having caught most of last year's Rugby World Cup on TV, I am thoroughly interested in the sport and would like to try and understand the difference between Six Nations and Heineken Cup and Tri Nations and Super XIV and so on. Unfortunately there seems to be a lack of explanation of all of this on wikipedia, much to my dismay. I think part of my confusion relates to the fact that unlike soccer which has been professional for more than 100 years, rugby (for reasons I can't really understand) has only been professional for just over a decade. This means that regular competition like the UEFA Champions League/European Cup and the Premier League/Football League were slow in developing rugby equivalents. In addition part of my ignorance comes from the fact that if coverage of soccer in the US is miniscule, then coverage of rugby is more or less non existent. That said can someone explain exactly what the answers to a few of my questions are?

1. In England the Guinness Premiership consists of clubs, many of which are around a century old like their association football counterparts. Promotion and relegation exists between the divisions of English football and that is all well and good. In Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, however, it appears that something much more like professional franchises have been established and play in the Magners League. There doesn't appear to be promotion/relegation and so my question is why aren't there more clubs in these countries? Rugby appears to be one of the most popular sports in Ireland so I find it hard to believe that there are'nt more than just four teams. This same situation appears to be going on between the Tri-Nations with the Super XIV and whatnot. If New Zealand is as good as they are why is it that there are only 5 professional rugby teams there? Please help.

There are lots of amateur and semi-pro clubs in Wales, Ireland and Scotland but rugby is a minority sport and historically not much of a spectator sport (except in Wales). There aren't many pro teams but then Wales only has three pro soccer teams so four pro rugby teams isn't bad.
New Zealand is one of the few countries where rugby union isn't a minority interest but it's only got a population of about four million. It's not exactly overflowing with any kind of professional sport.GordyB (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Why is it that there isn't a regular European Championship like Euro 2008 in Rugby. I understand there's the 6 Nations and the Tri-Nations, but that's only 9 countries. What the hell does the rest of the world do? Japan, the US, Canada, Argentina, etc. regularly make the World Cup, but it appears they don't play any competitive games in the years between them. Additionally why do the 6 Nations only play one game in each matchup? Why are there not reverse fixtures? Also, doesn't this mean that teams play 3 home games and 2 away games and vice versa? That's not exactly fair.

The USA and Canada do play competitive games against each other. The simple truth is that rugby union isn't nearly as popular worldwide as soccer or even basketball and so international competition isn't very developed. Only a few countries have professional leagues, the best XV Czech players would destroyed by Ireland's tenth best team.GordyB (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Finally, do players play both union and league rugby? If so how does that work and do the seasons (club and international) run concurrently?

The seasons are split but rugby league is a sufficiently different sport that its best players aren't necessarily going to be all that good at rugby union (or vice versa). Players move from one code to another at a grassroots level but few players are good enough to earn a living at the other game.GordyB (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever can help me understand these issues. Rugby union appears to be an interesting game, but I can't seem to find the answers to these questions and without them I feel like I can't figure out what's going on. Thanks again. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me deal with the easy one. No, players don't play both union and league. Not at the same time, that is: the seasons for both codes are more or less concurrent (at least in the northern hemisphere). In the good old bad old days, a player like Welshman Jonathan Davies was virtually ostracised because he chose to "turn professional" and join a rugby league club. Since union turned professional (officially only in 1995), there's been much more movement between the two codes: England's Jason Robinson was a successful league player before moving, with equal success, to union; Andy Farrell was equally successful at league but a bit of a flop at union. Australia's Mat Rogers started in league, crossed over to union, and has now gone back to league. New Zealand's Ma'a Nonu was said to be considering a move to league after failing to make the squad for the 2007 RWC. And so it goes on.
The Six Nations is the nearest thing to a European championship in rugby. Why isn't there something like Euro 2008? Basically, because not enough countries can field a competitive team. Even in the 6N, Italy still struggles to compete (except for the wooden spoon) and other countries would struggle even more. The Romanian and Georgian teams at the RWC consisted almost entirely of players who earn their living in France, because there isn't the domestic structure to support local teams, not at the top level of competition.
As to home and away in the 6N, that would mean ten games for each country -- that's as many internationals as the IRB now says should be considered the annual limit for players! So there'd be no room for mid-year or end-of-year tours. And when it's the clubs that pay these guys, I can't see them being too keen on losing the services of top players for ten weeks of international duty (plus pre-match camps etc). But you're right, the present structure does mean that in any one year three teams will each have three home games, while the other three only have two. But it's reversed the following year, which actually makes the tournament more interesting: as well as all the permutations of form, there's the added factor of who one gets to play at home and who one has to play away.
I'd happily tackle your other points, but it's past my bedtime. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for what you've already done, Jimmy. If you could shed some light on my other point at your convenience, I'd be very much obliged. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

<<In England the Guinness Premiership consists of clubs, many of which are around a century old like their association football counterparts.>>

Some top English clubs, like Gloucester, Leicester and Bath, are as old as their football counterparts, and have the most fans and a real indentification with the cities they represent, like footbll clubs. Others, like Newcastle, Worcester and Sale are more recent creations, or at least were very small clubs before professionalism.

<<In Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, however, it appears that something much more like professional franchises have been established and play in the Magners League.>>

As others have said, the populations of Scotland, Wales and Ireland are tiny. Rugby is popular in Wales and Ireland but in a pretty bad state in Scotland at the moment. In all these countries it is more financially viable to have franchises rather than clubs. In France Rugby has a more "association football" like set up, where the clubs are powerful and with a long history.

<<Why is it that there isn't a regular European Championship like Euro 2008 in Rugby.>> There is a second tier of European competition, sometimes called "6 nations B". This competition has promotion/relegation. The better teams are Romania, Portugal, Spain and Russia.

<<What the hell does the rest of the world do? Japan, the US, Canada, Argentina,>> Most teams outside the 6 nations and tri-nations are too weak to compete, but among serious rugby fans there is a lot of anger that Argentina, Fiji and Samoa are not given more regular competition. hope this helps, happy to answer any other questions. shane1 30 January 2008 (UTC)