I also found rugby union to be a far more intelligent game..ala you have you think ALOT more than league.

Plus Rugby Union is a world game. League is only really big in a couple of cities in england and australia. I like both games, but these are just the facts!!

Physical contact-wise, union is easier in the person-on-person contact because defenders must be aware of a different set of things. Through eliminating the contest for the ball, league has increased emphasis on person-on-person tackling which allows the bigger hits to occur. Except for the shoulder charge, there’s very little difference between what’s permitted by union and league hits-wise.

I suspect union may be a harder game physically for forwards, because each ruck and maul is effectively a brawl. The union scrum is hard work, whilst the league scrum is pretty much non-existant. Plus, ball retention is a lot more difficult in union.

No doubt that the aerobic fitness of league players is superior!

The League v Union debate is a pointless debate and utterly meaningless. People watch the sports that entertain them and I enjoy the blood and thunder of League and the variety of Union. Football comes a long second. Why? Football is a sport played by players who in my opinion are fundamentally talented but morally suspect. Rugby players, both League and Union, are honest and play by the rules on the field and do not fake or feign injury to gain an advantage. What you see is what you get. In Football this is NOT the case. It’s a morally bankrupt sport played by players who are now bred to feign injury at the merest touch from another player to gain an advantage. Ive stopped watching these cheating morons and divers,The Euros 2008 highlight the problem with players falling over at the merest touch from opposing players, it simply spoils the game completely.

The Family Game: The Untold Story of Hooliganism in Rugby League

SOCCER VIOLENCE BECAME rife in Britain over 25 years ago, and there were some pretty bad incidents. It was no surprise people turned away from soccer in droves. RL, as quick as a flash, nipped in with the slogan ‘Rugby League: A Man’s Game For All The Family’ in a bid to entice some of the disenchanted. While it is true Rugby League has never suffered the same problems of organised violence, the slogan did have a hollow ring when sporadic outbreaks occurred at our matches. Rugby League rightly enjoys a reputation as being a game that all the family can come and watch in safety. Yet it hasn’t always been that way – from the late 70s and throughout the 80s off the field violence occurred at and around Rugby League matches. This book is one man’s story of life as a Rugby League hooligan in those days. Following his introduction to the world of organised violence at an early age, it takes in his travels round the Rugby League community and the shocking incidents that occurred along the way. It honestly and graphically describes what used to go on, why he was involved in it and, equally as importantly, why he stopped getting involved and how the violence eventually died out. With vivid descriptions of the battling that took place, culminating in the day a fan was stabbed in St Helens, this is a book that will be of interest to all people who wonder why intelligent people immerse themselves in such a violent pastime. Also featuring contributions from around the Rugby League world, for the first time a book explores the untold story of hooliganism that used to exist in Rugby League.

Kindly Google Hull FC and Hull Kingston Rovers. Rugby league had lots of hooligan troubles back in the 1970s/80s, same as soccer did. There have been books written about rugby league hooliganism in England. They’ve had some crowd problems in rugby league in Australia, too, but nothing at the level they used to have in England.

You weren’t going to bring up Vichy? Interesting, that’s where most league fans go to first; you should consult the league fan internet handbook…

You didn’t say conspiracy, but what would you call it if people in high places used their power to promote one sport over another that they supposedly dislike, conspiring to eliminate league?

You’re refering to a conspiracy. Much like in Vichy when union officials conspired to eliminate league; when did I say that didn’t happen? It was a disgrace, however it did not kill RL in France, which held a very successful RLWC in 1954. Last time I checked the War had ended by then.

http://rugbyleagueplanet.com/RLP/Worldcup/1954worldcup.htm

However, by 1972 interest had faded. Look at the crowds.

http://rugbyleagueplanet.com/RLP/Worldcup/1972worldcup.htm

I wouldn’t doubt that Vichy had a detrimental affect on RL at the time, but even the interest that apparently carried on past the War eventually faded away, not due to anything union did but because the public just lost interest.

“Where its played it’s big.”

Which is why it’s covered there.

“It’s hardly if at all played up here and definitely not watched. ”

If you say so. But there have been a number of players from the north who play/have played for England (not counting converts obviously). If its not a national game, its much closer to it than league.

http://www.rl1895.com/rugby-divide.htm

“The RFU took the view that paying players money for turning out in a rugby team, for whatever reason, was not acceptable. The RFU heralded that any club or player involved in professional payments needed to be sought out and punished. There were even those who had become zealots for the cause of amateur rugby who investigated and reported any inference of a breach they could find.

Yet the RFU and many of its clubs were still openly paying players and sometimes even other clubs. The 20-man British team (all Northerners bar one) that toured Australia in 1888 were all paid, including captain Andrew Stoddart who recieved over 200 pounds – yet his public profile paralysed the RFU from acting. The tour itself was operated by two entrepreneurs looking to turn a profit, yet it was sanctioned by the RFU.

In 1887 the Blackheath club was paid 4 pounds a player by Bradford to secure a game. While a “gentlemen” was permitted to claim legitimate expenses, working class players were told “if they can’t afford to play, they should go without the game”.”

http://www.rugbyleagueoralhistory.co.uk/subjects/view/rugby-union-and-signing-for-bradford

No National interst? Maybe not National but where its played it’s big.
Please tell me you don’t think Union is truly national? It’s hardly if at all played up here and definitely not watched. If it wasn’t for Robinson, Farrell, Vainakolo switching even England games wouldn’t be watched. Not that they are more than once.

Also I can’t find the name of the guy thrown of a train because of the rumour he was talking to a League team. I think he was Welsh so it’s up to you to believe it or not.

SL has averaged less than the GP for like 5 years running. Besides, its easier to have good attendances when all the teams are so close to each other; you get a lot of visiting fans, which is why the London and French teams draw so poorly. Seriously, in a city of 7M people, how is it that Quins RL can only bother 3K or so to show up? GP gets better crowds despite having teams in places like Stockport (Sale), Leeds, Newcastle, Wycombe (Wasps), all in places where rugby is not exceptionally popular. Not to mention that the other London teams (Irish and Saracens) have had to move out of their strongholds where their core fanbases were/are located. The GP is a true national league; the SL is the M62 corridor featuring London and France.

“After all it wasn’t Leagues fans that threw one of their best players of a train because they thought (wrongly) that he’d been talking to a League team.”

Who?

“A lot of this stems from the fact Union has always had high powered friends that went into positions of power within England…gets little to no coverage on BBC and national newspapers.”

Perhaps because there isn’t any national interest?

Don’t give me the conspiracy garbage about how rugby has supposedly been trying to destroy league, how we supposedly need our ‘connections’ just to stay on top, etc. Perhaps more people just like union?

I’ve heard this a million times; I’m sure Vichy will be coming up shortly…

After all it wasn’t Leagues fans that threw one of their best players of a train because they thought (wrongly) that he’d been talking to a League team.

A lot of this stems from the fact Union has always had high powered friends that went into positions of power within England, no limited to tv, the armed forces and the govt. so League was banned in the army, and gets little to no coverage on BBC and national newspapers. (despite bigger attendances than union at club games)

The people in these positions played or supported Union when they were at Eton or Oxbridge and then developed a dislike for the other code that they took with them into their working life.

Also you don’t get Rugby League riots. Where did you come up with that. It’s one of the safest sports to go watch.

That goes back to the whole “real football” argument. People have a hard time accepting another football code because it’s not played the way they want it to be played. That’s been going on for centuries, and it keeps going on because nobody knows the history of all these games. Hell, I was one of those people until about two years ago.

It’s like divine creation v. evolution, but for football — except that the creationists have even less of a leg to stand on, because the written history is far more recent and far more detailed.

“League is faster, tougher, the skill set is greater in passing, tackling etc.”
Tougher? I don’t like to get into these toughguy comparisons (especially here as I admire players in both codes), but the fact that they don’t have any rucks, mauls, or contested scrums (the most intense parts of the game oftentimes, especially rucks) proves this certainly wrong, and again union players are larger as well. And league fans always like to throw out the “we’re more skillful” line, but if you’ve ever seen them try to throw it out wide on the the 5th phase or whatever, you realize that this is nothing more that a recycled stereotype that hasn’t been true since the dawn of union’s professionalism little more than a decade ago (same goes for the size assumption). Also, league’s gang tackling is easier because its multiple players trying to take down one man, who’s also not allowed any help from his own team because mauling is not allowed; and they don’t have to worry much about covering an opponent beyond the first reciever because rarely is a pass made beyond that. Besides, union players can certainly hit the line hard, especially in the centers. Again, I admire rugby league players as well, but I can’t stand league fans’ constant undermining of union.

I always find union fans to be far more accepting of league than vice versa…why can’t they learn to at least accept both codes?

They just had a Rugby League game between Leeds Rhinos from England and the South Sydney Rabbitohs from Australia drawing an over capacity crowd of ever 12 thousand at the UNF stadium in Jacksonville. It went down very well according to all the local media reports.

Think – also the best support ‘Rugby’ club in america of either code is likely the Jacksonville Axemen Rugby League Club – I can see them pushing RL to atleast a fully semi pro comp in the near future.

Checkout – jaxaxe.com

>>>This is why you hear sometimes that rugby is “a thug’s game played by gentlemen,” as opposed to Association football, which is “a gentleman’s game played by thugs.”

I would assume union is funded more, since it’s by far the more popular code worldwide, and thus gets the big sponsorships, especially true once union went professional about a decade ago. Plus union is middle class sport, so it has a lot of business connections which league (a working class sport) did not have (well, until Murdoch got involved that is).

However, within Australia, league is the more popular code, due to its strongholds in New South Wales and Queensland. League also has a stronghold in northern England, but union is overall the bigger code in England. So it’s a complicated question; it depends whether you are talking globally, or just within certain countries or regions.

ty

True, but the differences between NBA basketball vs. FIBA basketball are minor compared to the differences between rugby union and rugby league. It’s still basketball with minor rule differences; no one thinks of there being two “codes” of basketball like they think of there being different codes of rugby football. The principle is the same, it’s just a matter of degree of divergence between the different sets of rules.

Probably the real reason for the USA underperforming in basketball is not the differences in rules but simply the American reluctance to accept the concept of permanent national teams, constantly in a state of practice and readiness. You can’t throw together some NCAA basketball stars and some younger NBA stars once every two or four years and expect to win. Not when the rest of the world has improved as much in basketball as they have done.

But as you say, that’s a discussion for a different blog (although it certainly has applicability to football).

Rugby league was diverging away from union around the same time that gridiron was evolving in the USA, and you can see some similarites between the gridiron “scrimmage line” and the way league restarts the play after every tackle (except of course the clock does not stop in rugby league; there are no ‘plays’ or ‘downs’, in the gridiron sense, in rugby league). If I recall correctly, initially in gridiron the play was restarted after a tackle by a player toeing the ball backwards to a teammate, similar to how it is still done in rugby league, of course this was before gridiron adopted “hiking” the ball. And of course rugby league does not allow blocking, so although the players line up similar to a scrimmage line, it is a very loose line with no blocking; the players are lining up to receive the ball from another player, or to tackle the ball carrier, but not to block.

Here in North America rugby union is the dominant rugby code, as it is in most countries. There is however a very small amateur rugby league organization, the American National Rugby League, that sounds interesting:

http://www.amnrl.com/

There have been various attempts to introduce Americans to rugby league. It’s an interesting history. Some wiki links and quotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_National_Rugby_League#Origins

“Origins

The first signs of domestic rugby league within the United States came about during 1939 when the Californian Rugby Football Union wrote a letter to the Rugby Football League based in England requesting a move away from Union and instead decided to affiliate itself with League. In late-1939, the Rugby Football League began making plans to send a delegate to California to finalise the plans but with the outbreak of the Second World War were unable to do so.

Rugby league then lay somewhat dormant in the decades after the war and although a hastily put together international side toured both Australia, New Zealand and France in the early 1950s this did not change anything at all back in the United States.

Things slowly began to change in North America during the late-1970s and early-1980s when several small amateur domestic competitions began to appear around both the United States and Canada. Originally these competitions were largely made up of ex-pats from the United Kingdom and Oceania but slowly domestic players began to appear both from other sports and rugby union.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_league_in_the_United_States#American_All-Stars

“American All-Stars

One of the earliest attempts to introduce rugby league to the United States was in 1953, when Mike Dimitro, a wrestling promoter, was asked to organise a tour of Australasia by an American rugby league side.

The team was given a huge schedule that included 26 matches against Australian and New Zealand sides. None of the 22 American players had ever played rugby league prior to this tour, they presented themselves in gridiron like attire early on in the tournamenet. The side only won six games as well as drawing two.

Their second match of the tour, against a Sydney side, drew a crowd of 65,453 to the Sydney Cricket Ground. After a consistent lack of competition, crowds were good but never reached the same heights.

The tour did not in turn bring any benefits to American rugby league, but Mike Dimitro did not give up, he was able to organise two exhibitions against Australia and New Zealand in California that did not turn out to be a big success.

An American side also made a short tour of France in early 1954, including a match against the France national team in Paris. France beat USA 31-0.”

Whether league or union is your cup of tea usually depends on where you are born. Austrailia worships league (however after professionalism in Union it is making a resurgence) where the Northern Hemisphere teams usually favor the 15 man game (however England has a significant league following, not to mention one of their most prolific tryscorers in Union, Jason Robinson, is a league convert).

In closing, to put it in terms my old college roomates understood: Jamal Lewis’ style of running would suit league, whereas a finesse player like Reggie Bush would be more suited to Union.

Sorry for the additives, but I love rugby and spreading its gospel, great blog!