Board index ‹ Other Forums ‹ Other Sports ‹ United global game; merger of RL and RU

RL as it is but taken on by the clout of the IRB. RL has the game, RU has the backing and marketing men.

Worzel wrote:

RL as it is but taken on by the clout of the IRB. RL has the game, RU has the backing and marketing men.

This. It's absolutely right.

But it'll never happen!

All comes down to the way the ball is recycled in possession. Everything else is window-dressing.

If you are allowed to retain the ball in the tackle, then you can take more risks without fear of losing possession. You also have far fewer penalties and scrums because of breakdowns in play, as rucks and mauls are always going to be very prone to errors and infringements.

How to re-start - lineouts, competitive scrums, drop-outs etc - the scoring system, the number of players even, these are all issues which could be adapted. But as long as there is a requirement to release the ball in the tackle, and no secure possession, then you will have a game which is essentially about kicking for territory and hoping to score from a setpiece, peppered with lots of stoppages for scrums and penalties.

The decision on possession would essentially decide whether the game was league with amendments, or union with amendments. There is no middle ground.

Roy Haggerty wrote:

The decision on possession would essentially decide whether the game was league with amendments, or union with amendments. There is no middle ground.

Excellent observation RH.

IT's just that it is so galling that our (RL) players do not get the appropriate level of recognition or media coverage.

For example Will Carling was, in relative terms, not fit to lace the boots of contempories such as say a Garry Schofield in his pomp. But look at the unfair disparity in general recognition in this country.

beetwaste wrote:

The benefits would be a single code of Rugby that would be better place to compete on a domestic and world stage with other sports. Imagine an English league with Leicester, Northampton etc, combined with Wigan, Leeds etc. It'd be a helluva league. And the rah-rah boys have a much better supported international game than we'll ever have. Couple that with the blue-chip sponsors that seem to be drawn to the 15-a side game, and there are massive benefits.

The downside is, that the new game would be utter tripe, because it'd almost certainly be RU with 13 players. Lineouts, rucks,mauls. Constant kicking. I doubt the RL fans would adopt that.

I wonder how an experimental mini-series between the two codes would work. Top 2 SL teams vs top-two in RU, in a mini-league. Try some different rules and see what sort of game we'd get. Drop line-outs and two players, but with contested scrums and rucks/mauls. Or 15 a side limited tackles.

It'll never happen. Completely fantasy.

If the codes merged there'd be a much greater emphasis on the international competition as that is where most of the money lies.

Look at other small-mid sized international sports worldwide, cricket, hockey, etc. Chasing/expanding the international game eventually kills off the club game. In Australia you'd basically be handing the country over to the year-long AFL and soccer club comps while a merged RL/RU would simply take the place of what RU is now; non-existent clubs and one or two well covered internationals a year...

Give it a couple of generations and the next gen Inglis, Tomkins, Foran, etc would be growing up idolising the week-to-week players of their favourite AFL/soccer club and the unified rugby would lose many, many players and fans.

There is already a hybrid game, it's called "Super Series", or as I call it "Rugby League with Line Outs".

In "Super Series" the way the laws are 'interpreted' (or in some cases 'ignored') means that if you're going forward you can pretty much do what you want at the ruck as long as the ball comes out quickly, while if you're defending you're hardly allowed to counter-ruck or touch the ball. Furthermore the maul is ref'd in such a way as to pretty much outlaw it.
All done to speed up the game for TV and compete with RL and Aussie Rules.

Trouble is, it's not really Rugby Union. It strikes me that people who are into union want to watch union, not some bastardised hybrid resulting from wholesale re-interpretation of the laws.

Similarly, those of us who love Rugby League first and foremost want to watch League, not some derivative.

salford1970 wrote:

Next Churchill will solve the problems in Israel and Palestine.

"If you all just shake hands and accept each other's right to live and have your own homeland as well as sharing Jerusalem I can see this ending well for all concerned".

Is Jerusalem in Salford?

Lockyer4President! wrote:

Union will be amateur in Australia within fifteen years. Properly amateur this time.

...you really are mistaking your juvenile wishlist for facts.

53,250 was the crowd average for the Wanabbees in 2014, with 37 the average at Home over 7 tests.

beetwaste wrote:

Imagine an English league with Leicester, Northampton etc, combined with Wigan, Leeds etc. It'd be a helluva league. And the rah-rah boys have a much better supported international game than we'll ever have. Couple that with the blue-chip sponsors that seem to be drawn to the 15-a side game, and there are massive benefits.

Players could play League rules at club level and Union rules at international level...what? It's not as if we don't already play under different rules internationally!