RU vs RL, what's the big idea?

[SimonMac]

RL: Big men running in straight lines.



** as an Irish friend of mine put it.

I refer my learned colleague to double Harry Sunderland Trophy winner Rob Burrows

[FiveTimes]

That's a couple of exceptions your giving me there; you won't see people of Steve Thompson's build on an RL pitch, and not many of Simon Shaw's size or age. You won't see many Shane Williams types either.

You used to see people like Thompson years ago - Andy Gregory had a bit of condition on him.
Now a days all the players a lot fitter but there is still the need for larger players to crash through the gain line and batter teams with physical presence.

[Mich the Tester]

Playing RU most of my life as I am too small to play RL I am a bit biased but there is nothing better than a good game of RU. Lot of passing, free flowing action, edge of the seat stuff. RL can't compare but the only down side is that there is also nothing worse than a bad game of RU when they start putting too much boot to ball or have an over zealous ref. I enjoy a good game of League as well but end up sitting there yelling at the screen cause he won't pass it!!

There will never be a resolution to this argument IMO. I enjoy a bit of both but RU is for me. I am glad each code won their own years ago when they tried each others game. If League had one both Union would have died.

The only thing that annoys me about RL is the lack of proper scrums. Unfortunately, international RU is in danger of going the same way due to incompetent refereeing of the scrum. I could end up doing a Brian Moore style rant now, but suffice to say I think the scrum is an integral part of rugby union and done properly it gives a chance to people of very varying shapes to become top sportspeople by specialising.

[northernladyuk]

As a Northerner, I should prefer the 13 man game, but being from Bolton we had no real Rugby history, so I just preferred Twickers for the annual Four/Five/Six Nations on BBC.

Having watched Leeds Rhinos a few times, and England (off to the Final on Sat!) I feel it's a faster, more athletic game. None of the mishandling we see in RU (well England RU) just fast, accurate passing and superb handling...

Incidentally, four tix for the Final, 45 quid. Cost me 150 quid last time I went to a Prem game, and that was only Man City vs Brum....

I don't understand it all, dearie. To me it's just a writhing mass of manhood on the telly that my old man drools over, while I sit by his side dreaming of the days when he used to show me his superb handling.

But ever since his work started to dry up, it's knocked his confidence, and now that I have to go out in the evening to earn the mortgage money it's all he can do to sit in the same room as me.

[Churchill]

The only thing that annoys me about RL is the lack of proper scrums. Unfortunately, international RU is in danger of going the same way due to incompetent refereeing of the scrum. I could end up doing a Brian Moore style rant now, but suffice to say I think the scrum is an integral part of rugby union and done properly it gives a chance to people of very varying shapes to become top sportspeople by specialising.

So what if we end up with a few broken necks and other spinal injuries due to incompetent instruction along the way?

[Mich the Tester]

So what if we end up with a few broken necks and other spinal injuries due to incompetent instruction along the way?

Ah well, yes; don't know about Britain, but over here in NL we have a very structured approach to coaching scrummaging (drawn up with the help of NZ coaches), which involves players learning the right skills but also, importantly, learning how to build strength in the right muscles to protect themselves. No approach can ever be 100% safe, but the risks of scrummaging can be kept low by good coaching AND good refereeing; I think it's actually the second of the two that causes more problems.

These days refs at a high level have to do quite tough fitness tests; that means that old forwards, who really understand the scrum, and have some idea of what to look for in rucks and mauls and know where trouble is likely to start (where ball has just been, not where it's going), often can't meet the fitness standard even though their reffing skills might be excellent; that means there's an important lack of knowledge officiating on the pitch. Put simply, too many top referees are backs, who can run alongside the players for 80 minutes and even learn the laws off by heart, but don't actually have bloody clue what's going on in the various forms of body pile ups that union involves.

[DodgyAgent]

Morning Mich!

It was a toss-up between you and Dodgy as to who would be the first fish of the day.

You won!

He just managed to get out of bead earlier than me.

Oh and by the way

[Doggy Styles]

As a southerner I prefer RU because that was what I played at school and what I was brought up with.

I have had little to do with RL and remember little of its history except Eddie Waring's voice, that old video of "That poor, poor lad" Don Fox, and Australia always winning the world cup with a player called Maninga. On the other hand I remember many of the great RU teams, players, tests and tournaments.

I prefer the greater variety in RU. However, I accept that the rules around rucks, mauls and scrums have to be complicated.

[DodgyAgent]

I find rugby league totally tedious. I do however admire the running and passing skills of rugby league players who are more athletic than Union players. I just find the intricacies of Union and the sheer multitude of dimensions so much more exciting. Having said that I can see why Union has less visual appeal to casual audiences as it often looks static and therefore tedious. - I think with Union one needs to have patience and a good understanding of the game/tribal interest to be entertained by it.