Jump to content

Talk:Rugby football/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Gridiron"

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

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

WikiProject Rugby

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

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

History questions

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

If anybody knows answers to questions such as these, please edit the article to include them
-What is different about rugby and American football that allows rugby players to not wear pads.
-What the serious injury rate is in rugby compared to other sports

The photograph needs to be replaced.

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

The Times Digital Archive

The times digital archive is available to the general public for the month of April. This allows wikipedia editors and researchers to source some fantastic information on the history of our topics. I have already found various articles of historical significance for rugby league and rugby union, but I suspect there are many more to be found.

I've found articles relating to:

  • The professionalism circular of the RU
  • Reports on the Resolutions of the RU pertaining to professionalism
  • The Banning of huddersfield clubs
  • The introduction/modification of rules to both RU and RL
  • Many Many Many Results (although I did not keep these, they are not my interest)
  • Reports of Rugby league in South Africa
  • A single report on the Rugby league in Italy

And much much more.

What you must do

  1. Go HERE.
  2. Click on the Thomson Gale Power Search
  3. Click on the "Times Digital Archive" Link under "Aditional Databases"

POds 05:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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

www.footworkcamp.com Intelligent Running Rugby for Players and Coaches. Includes free clips video of USA Star Ellie Karvoski!
www.usarugby.org/playing/youth/IsRugbySafeForYouth.pdf “Is rugby a safe sport for America’s youth?”
www.rugbycity.net ASA Camels Beer-Sheva Rugby club - Israel
www.cokecans.com/can/577-You-could-make-the-all-Black-Team Coca-Cola Cans set of New-Zealand Black Team
fraugustine.priory.org/RugbyWebSite.htm Kwai Nyu Rugby Club
www.picture-newsletter.com/rugby/index.htm Pictures Rugby
www.rochesteraardvarks.com/ Rochester Aardvarks Rugby Football Club
www.thesportbar.com/ Rugby Scores & Statistics

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

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

Requested move

Rugby football → Rugby — Primary usage. Target should be moved to Rugby (disambiguation), currently a redirect. SigPig |SEND - OVER 08:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support per nomination. But if no move, at least rugby should redirect to rugby football and not the dab page. —  AjaxSmack  10:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. The dictionaries have a single definition for the sport, and calls it "rugby" rather than "rugby football"; see Merriam-Webster's entry for "rugby". Also, the town of "Rugby" is not as notable as this usage, so there's no risk of confusion as well.--Endroit 12:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support --Yath 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. But Rugby (football) is certainly acceptable. CS46 20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose - status quo seems fine, no real need for a move. Chris cheese whine 10:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Things are fine as they are. There are many other perfectly valid definitions of Rugby. Perhaps Rugby football could be moved to Rugby (football). G-Man * 19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    I oppose a move to Rugby (football). The article is about the split of rugby league from rugby union. Nobidy actually plays "Rugby football" they either play "Rugby", (almost always meaning rugby union) or they play "league" -Arch dude 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Rugby football is a perfectly understandable term; a move would give undue prominence to this usage of the name. EdC 00:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - the suggestion of Rugby (football) above is the best by my book. Dibo T | C 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Stongly oppose - In Australia, the biggest rugby football country, the commen terminology is football. If there should be any move, it should be to football (rugby) in uniform with soccer, not by illogically taking the football out of the title for what is the second biggest code of football(behind north american football, a rugby descendant) in the English speaking world. --Ehinger222 05:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    I live in the antipodes to Australia - I was under the impression that football in Australia was Australian rules football, and that rugby was, well, rugby, as in the Australian websites National Rugby League, Australian Rugby, New South Wales Rugby, and so on. If you could make the distinction for me, I would be grateful. Thanks. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 12:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Australia is unusual in that rugby league is the more popular form and followers of rugby league refer to both it and rugby union as "football". Australian followers of union generally distinguish between "rugby" and "league", but also sometimes use the word "football" for their game (as in Sydney University Football Club. Therefore, in Australia, both codes of rugby have strong links with the word "football". Grant | Talk 05:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    So if someone said, "Want to go play football?", you'd have to get him to disambig what he meant? And conversely, if one wanted to play (for want of a better term) "rugby", one might very well say "football"? --SigPig |SEND - OVER 05:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    It would usually be understood from the social/geographical context (see football (word)#Australia) what was meant by "football". But communication problems do sometimes arise when Australians from different backgrounds meet. "Rugby football" is a name which is meaningful to followers of both union and league. Grant | Talk 07:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. Learn something new every day. --09:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - also oppose "Rugby (football)" the game is a game of football called rugby football to distinguish it from other codes of football. Should all forms of football be named "Association (football)", "American (football)" etc, I think not. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Except that, while one might play a game of rugby, one generally does not play a game of American or Canadian or what have you. At least "rugby" is actually used by itself to refer to the game. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 12:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Its "turtles all the way down" I'd say rugger! --Philip Baird Shearer 23:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - retain status quo. "Rugby" is ambiguous, the town is not exactly obscure and Rugby School ("Rugby" for short) is even better known than the town. Then there are the five other towns around the world by the same name. "Rugby" is also sometimes an abbreviation for a shirt, i.e. "I'm wearing a rugby." Grant | Talk 11:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    One could say the same thing for a "polo", which at least has some dictionary support; but the game polo has primary place, the shirt is on the dab page. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 12:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Polo isn't a famous school or a well-known town after which the school is named. Grant | Talk 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strongly oppose - I spent a lot of time bypassing the disambiguation page for Rugby. Most of the links actually went to Rugby union rather than Rugby football, but perhaps as many as five percent went to the town, the school, or elswhere. We accumulate approximately ten new incorrect links per week, which I dutifully disambiguate. By now, I have probably fixed more than 500 links total. I think we should leave it as is. If we do make the change, it should be to Rugby union, not Rugby football, but such a move would (apparently) incite religious warfare from the Rugby league faction. If we make any move, the supporters must agree to divide up the work of fixing the resulting redirects. -Arch dude 21:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Whats the difference ?

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

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

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

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


Pre 1895 rugby football and post 1895 rugby union are the same sport. Rugby football never died, by 1895 the sport was played in numerous countries, none of the officiating bodies ceased to exist such as the RFU or IRFB and the rules werent changed. The school of rugby where the game originated still plays the same rugby football.
The term 'rugby union' is used to avoid confusion, theres never been an official name change from rugby football to rugby union. The pre 1895 clubs and organistions didn't change their names. The word union isn't found in the IRBs title nor mentioned in 'Rugby World Cup'. The word union is simply a generic term for an organisation. In most countries the sport is referred to simply as rugby, 'rugby union' is only used to differentiate from rugby league in places where rugby league has some popularity, given rugby union is played in over 100 countries and rugby league about 30 union is a coloquial term used in a minority of countries. The term 'rugby union' isn't ever used in languages other than English, its always simply called rugby. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.119.117 (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
Rugby football existed before the RFU was formed in 1870. The RFU proved itself a fairly incompetent organisation that failed to take rugby football's popularity in the north (early county cups had crowds higher than the early FA cups) and make it a genuinely global/European game. The rules of the RFU were a compromise between pre-existing rules between pre-existing rugby football clubs. Many rugby league clubs like Bradford Bulls, Hull FC, Huddersfield Giants existed before the RFU was formed and the northern clubs(eventually rugby league clubs) were influential in demanding more points be awarded for tries, so it is hardly a linear position that the RFU, as it was after 1895, was the sole legacy of what rugby football was before the split, or the original creater of the game and so any claim to the RFU being the sole "Rugby" is somewhat specious. Both rugby union and rugby league rules have changed dramatically since 1895 and rugby union rule changes before the split were dramatically influenced by rgby league clubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Of course rugby existed prior to the RFU. By 1895 rugby had expanded beyond England, the RFU wasnt the world governing body. The IRB was formed in 1886 and rugby unions had been formed in many countries. Ive never seen anyone claim the RFU was the original creator or the sole rugby. The facts are however that rugby didn't die in 1895 any suggestion of such is ridiculous. Rugby School, the IRB, the RFU and all the other national unions continued to play rugby, and the name was never changed, rugby union is a term used in a minority of cases and used purely for disambiguation. Obviously the rules have changed dramatically however rugby league doesn't cease to exist and become a new sport every year when the rules are changed, nor so when the super league fiasco was in swing and rugby league in its most important nation was divided in half.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 15:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

National sport

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

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

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

No protection?

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


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

To expand on this, the tackles are slightly different in their goal. Rugby tackles tend to be directed at the legs, while American football tackles are generally directed at the torso (though leg tackles are also common), in order to force the ball carrier to fall backwards. Also, there are less restrictions on contact in American football, especially involving players that are not in possession of the ball. --67.165.6.76 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the neccessity of pads in American football is because there are alot less sheparding rules, and there are players coming in every direction and at every angle. In my experience, injuries tend to happen in tackles when the player being tackled is not ready or aware for the collision. This situation tends to be the bread and gravy of American football because of the forward pass etc. but is nt a situation that happens alot in footy except when high kicks are being taken, and those rules are regulated. I think, from the little I have seen of the American game, that tackling in both games in very similar, just that the offside rule allows for lucid player perception.
As for the injury factor, a recent report was done that found that rugby league at junior/amateur levels resulted in alot less injuries than soccer, AFL and rugby union, though rugby league has the reputation(probably deserved) of being the most violent and pugilistic sport of them all... so the results were quite shocking to alot of people. Hope that helps :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
In Rugby you are not allowed to BLOCK. This is where MOST of the injuries were coming from, like in the "Flying Wedge" which actually caused fatalities. (Mauls are taken from this idea but can only be used if the defense has been "binded" otherwise the maul must disperse). In 1905, Theodore Roosevelt told football leagues to make it safer or have it outlawed so players started wearing pads. Football pads protect you from the other guys pads. My experience is this: you only need the bulkier plastic pads if the other person is wearing them. When you block, your intention is to keep the guy back, but tackling usually involves both players going down, a lot less force is needed to knock someone over (divert his motion into the ground) than to stop his motion all together. In rugby the tackler must wrap his arms in the attempt, this protects both players more than an often used tackle in football where you just run into the guy as hard as you can, sometimes twisting away to hit only with the shoulders. Billy Nair 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

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


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

Looking through most of the edits, it looks like just reverting to Oct 3 will be best. If you made any edits on the 4th that need to be kept, make sure to redo them. I will try to sift out the legitimate edits and put them in. (After I get home, give the vandal time to get off his computer) Billy Nair 20:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I had a look through, and although most of the earlier vandalism had been reverted as it occurred, the vandalism in the last day or so had not. I've done this now and it should have all been removed. May pay to read through just in case though. - Shudde talk 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. The only "real" changes I saw was the capitalization of Football in the first sentence {Rugby Football, often just "rugby"}, which is a current debate here, and changing {"a fine disregard"} to {"a fine side step round a play then showed great pace down the wing"} which I think seems more appropriate, but since I don't know the real story do not know which should be kept. Billy Nair 19:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Flump?

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

Ireland

"In Ireland, rugby union is also associated with private education and the "D4" stereotype, and this image of the spoilt, ignorant, wealthy rugby-playing jock inspired the best-selling Ross O'Carroll Kelly novels." Seems to me that this has a regional bias. I doubt if the inhabitants of Limerick City would agree with it, after all this is a city where the council list rugby first before soccer or GAA Sports.[1]. Or from this more recent document on the Limerick City council website "The City has an honorable sporting tradition and embraces all codes especially rugby. This has a significant economic value for the City and is being exploited as part of its promotion." (Future Image OF Limerick City) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Australia

"In the 'National Rugby League' there are teams from all Australian states and territories except South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania"

Oh, really? So, except these four, all others are represented, that is-four of them. Not really an "all except" material now, right? Zhelja (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. It would be better to say "there are teams from the Australian states and territories of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and ACT." Less than half of the states and territories are involved so that would be a better method. GizzaDiscuss © 09:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Status of Rugby Codes

A few things, I feel where the IRB is mentioned the number of members should be added, as merely listing some minor nations is a little subjective and might give the impression that only those countries play. Is it really necessary to mention in Malaysia the sport is played by students, this sentence looks completely out of place, surely this information is more relevent to a Malaysian rugby page. Could Malaysia be instead merely added to the list of minor rugby union playing nations. Thirdly listing which states of Australia don't play in the NRL seems superfluos, given its requires as much effort to simply write the ones that do play in the NRL. I'd advocate simply writing that the NRL is a competition for clubs from Australia with the addition of one New Zealand club. If people then wish to find out which states of Australia play the game they could look up the NRL page.

If no one objects I'll make those minor alterations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.187.165 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why so many references to class/status/middle class/schools etc? In places this reads like a political tract. Is there a personal point of view coming through here? I'm not sure that this is the place for allusions to the 'class struggle'. Rugby football is a game which is played and watched by a wide spectrum of people. A grammatical, neutral and non-deprecating style should be the aim.

BC?

"played at Rugby School between 1200bc"...???--212.241.64.236 (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the correct dates should have been, but the obvious error has been removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources needed

I moved the following seciton here from the article. It is interesting and all, but completely original research. As sources are provided, it can be moved back to the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Culture

In the UK, an old saying goes "football is a gentleman's game played by ruffians and rugby is a ruffian's game played by gentlemen". In most rugby-playing countries, rugby union is widely regarded as an "establishment" sport, historically amateur, played mostly by members of the upper and middle classes. For example, many students at private schools and grammar schools play rugby union. By contrast, rugby league has traditionally been seen as a working and middle class, professional pursuit. A contrast to this ideology is evident in the neighbouring unions of England and Wales. In England the sport is very much associated with the public schools system (i.e. independent/private schools). In Ireland, rugby union is also associated with private education and the "D4" stereotype, and this image of the spoilt, ignorant, wealthy rugby-playing jock inspired the best-selling Ross O'Carroll Kelly novels. In Wales, rugby is associated with small village teams which consisted of coal miners and other industrial workers playing on their days off.

Exceptions to the above include New Zealand, Wales, France except Paris, Cornwall, the Borders region of Scotland, County Limerick in Ireland, and the Pacific Islands, where rugby union is popular in working class communities. Nevertheless, rugby league is perceived as the game of the working class people in the English counties of Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria, and in the Australian states of New South Wales and Queensland. In the United Kingdom, rugby union fans sometimes use the term "rugger" as an alternative name for the sport, (see Oxford '-er'). Also the kick off is known to be called "Rug Off" in some regions. In the U.S., people who play rugby are sometimes called "ruggers", a term little used elsewhere except facetiously. Those considered to be heavily involved with the rugby union lifestyle—including heavy drinking and striped jumpers—sometimes identify as "rugger buggers". Retired rugby union players who still turn up to watch, drink and serve on committees rank as "alickadoos" or, less kindly, as "old farts". An alternative name for the game adopted primarily in local rugby comps is known as "Ra-Ra" referring to the pomp and circumstance associated with the sport.

Because of the nature of the games (almost unlimited body contact with little or no padding), the rugby world frowns on unsporting behaviour, since even a slight infringement of the rules may lead to serious injury or even death. Because of this, governing bodies enforce the rules strictly.

In Australia support for both codes is concentrated in New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory. The same perceived class barrier as exists between the two games in England also occurs in these two states, fostered by rugby union's prominence and support at private schools. Australian followers of rugby league usually refer to rugby league as "league", "footy" or "football" and rugby union as "rugby" or "union".

New Zealanders generally refer to rugby union simply as either "football", "rugby" or "rugby union" and to rugby league as "rugby league", "football" or "league". In New Zealand, playing rugby football has a reputation as the epitome of manliness for both Māori and Pākehā (non-Māori), as symbolised by a haka (war dance) at the start of important games. Kiwis see rugby as the accepted substitute for military heroism and an excellent training ground for soldiering. If Britain won the Battle of Waterloo on the playing-fields of Eton College, New Zealand long saw its role in the British Empire as intimately connected with the football field. Popular Kiwi mythology sees the encouragement of New Zealand rugby in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as the Imperial reaction to declining physical fitness in Britain's industrial slums.


The materials in this section are in general true and because of general nature one is very hard to find "references". For example, Will Carling once referred to the bosses in RFU as "old farts". TV program like the "Footy Show" in Australia also only talks about league and not union. In NSW and Queensland when one talks about "rugby" people usually think you are referring to league. No one will be conducting any type of survey on this yet the contents are true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.232.123 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Culture section

The culture section starts with the sentence:

In the UK, an old saying goes "Football is a gentleman's game played by ruffians and rugby is a ruffian's game played by gentlemen".

but then proceeds to compare rugby union and rugby league, and doesn't talk about football (=soccer?). Is there some meaning of "football" that I'm missing? This is doubly confusing since the article is called "Rugby football" -- North American readers might therefore be further disoriented by this paragraph.

It is also far from clear -- completely garbled if you ask me -- how the fact that

In England the sport [and which one? rugby union or rugby league? or both?] is very much associated with the public schools system (i.e. independent/private schools).

is a "contrast to this ideology", the ideology in question presumably being that "rugby union is widely regarded as an "establishment" sport" while "rugby league has traditionally been seen as a working and middle class pursuit".

I have no knowledge of rugby and have never played, so I cannot fix this paragraph.

Slightly different topic, it claims here: [2] that "rugby" is translated to "gridiron" for American audiences. Wikipedia usually mentions these kinds of things, no? Does anyone know how or why such a "translation" makes sense? 216.94.11.2 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting naked?

Why do Rugby players get naked after certain scoring events? Someone please write a section about this peculiar tradition. ~ Agvulpine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC).

Do they?! --MacRusgail (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Early history

In ancient Greece two games resembling rugby football (or north American football) were episkyros (Greek: επίσκυρος)

  • ἐπίσκυρος, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, on Perseus Digital Library

and phaininda.

  • Nigel Wilson, Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece, Routledge, 2005, p. 310
  • H. A. Harris, Sport in Greece and Rome, Cornell University Press, on Google books
  • Nigel M. Kennel, The Gymnasium of Virtue: Education and Culture in Ancient Sparta, The University of North Carolina Press, 1995, on Google books
  • Origin of Ball Games
  • Nigel B. Crowther, Sport in Ancient Times (Praeger Series on the Ancient World), Praeger Publishers, January 2007
  • Steve Craig, Sports and Games of the Ancients: (Sports and Games Through History), Greenwood, 2002, on Google Books
  • Don Nardo, Greek and Roman Sport, Greenhaven Press, 1999, p. 83

Which of these sources claim that Rugby is related to either episkyros or phaininda? Why have you (user:The Cat and the Owl) added in "(or north American football)" as that is nothing to do with the history of Rugby and is a game derived from Rugby? Which of the sources above claim that either game is related to "north American football)". -- PBS (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right about Origin of Ball Games, H. A. Harris, Nigel B. Crowther and Don Nardo sources, they should be removed. About north American football, the source says "like a hybrid of north American football...", therefore the claim should be removed but the source should stay. These sources state that a form, a resemblance, a kind, an alike game of rugby played in ancient Greece:
  • LSJ definition
  • Nigel Wilson, Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece, Routledge, 2005, p. 310[3]
  • Steve Craig states that some do and some don't, however in spite of Harris statement he points out that "large parts of modern rugby are played without kicking the ball". [4] p. 104
  • Sports and games of medieval cultures, by Sally E. D. Wilkins[5]. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Nigel M. Kennell, The gymnasium of virtue: education & culture in ancient Sparta p. 61 does not claim that the game resembled rugby. Kennell writes "Episkuros would have seemed to our modern eyes like a hybrid of North American football, rugby, and a sort of netless volleyball".
  • Nigel Guy Wilson in Encyclopedia of ancient Greece p. 310, he writes "A little like rugby football without any kicking".
  • The Norman Gardiner Athletics in the Ancient World, p. 235 writes "It is not in harpastum but in a very different game, episkyros, that we really find anticipations of Rugby football, at least in the arrangement of the playing field"
The only source you have found that supports your contention is Sports and games of medieval cultures by Sally E. D. Wilkins. "Episkuros was a popular ball game in the later years of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, and not unlike today's rugby". However she contradicts Gardiner by stating there were no touch lines (which she does not call touch lines but sidelines!). Her description of a game is nothing like rugby if anything it sounds more like the [[Eton wall game].
A game that allows forward passing and no kicking has less in common with rugby than baseball does to cricket. At the moment what you are doing is synthesising sources to advance a a theory. If you want to use Wilkins as a source, then do so by quoting her, but she does not claim that the game is in anyway a forerunner of rugby than it is of soccer, handball or the Eton wall game. -- PBS (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually my edits were based on LSJ definition of ἐπίσκυρος which states "resembling Rugby football" so I tried to add more sources to that. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If someone wants to explain that episkuros by stating it resembles the game of rugby (apart from there were no touchlines, no goals, no kicking, and forward passing was allowed, oh and we don't know if the game had any form or rucking or mauling) then there are places were that can be inserted, but episkuros has nothing to do with the history of the game of rugby and should not be included in the history of this article. -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a good point to discuss with the LSJ editors... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias in culture section

There is some stereotypical rubbish in the section about rugby players being oafs. Rugby is popular in the South Sea Islands, and in Utah, which are places not noted for their drinking culture... a bit more balance is needed here.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Having lived and played (and now coaching) in Wales, England, France and the USA, I can state from deep personal experience that the "rugby union lifestyle" is significantly exaggerated in the USA. It is commonly perceived as a college game for drunken ruffians, a sorry perception that USAR is working hard to correct. In my youth, drinking the night before the game - often with the opposing team - was considered the norm. Players found to be drinking these days are swiftly removed from the squad. While there is a certain amount of drunken buffoonery that we all have partaken of, there is also a very strong commitment to family, hospitality and community that is evidenced worldwide. Rugby includes players from all classes these days, and while the upper class/lower class dichotomy still exists in the minds of many of us older players, the game and it's culture has changed much in the past 15 years, especially at the international level. Local rugby continues to be the grass roots community alternative to less "friendly" games, and the common USA perceptions are not representative of the world of rugby. While there is certainly room to examine the festive, boisterous nature of many rugby clubs, this should be balanced with the familial connotations of rugby as a community sport, and tempered by the perceived drinking culture that is mostly associated with college rugby in the United States. I'm not saying we don't drink - welcoming a visiting team to our field and then following it up with a good night out with the lads and their families at the club is certainly part and parcel of Union, but there is a bigger picture. 24.186.54.125 (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruffians

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

I see you've changed the source... the original source at [6] gives the opposite saying, and this is the only one I'm personally familiar with. The idea is that football is a game played by gentlemen (traditionally, anyway) but that the supporters are stereotypically working class "thugs" (or ruffians, if you like). With Rugby, it is the other way round - the players are large hulking men with broken noises wheras the fans are much more upper or middle class, presumably because of the association the sport has with the public school system. Perhaps both versions could be inserted into the article? --81.158.148.64 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Both sources have substantially the same thing.
"Football is a game for gentlemen played by ruffians and rugby is a game for ruffians played by gentlemen"
"The old saying that football is a gentleman's game played by thugs and rugby is a game for thugs played by gentlemen"
The classic version is gentlemen and ruffians - 'thugs' is a lame paraphrase. Fans aren't mentioned. Jagdfeld (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also a slightly odd phrase, in that one must be aware of the reference to football actually means one specific type of football, which mightn't be apparent at first reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.207.177 (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The original quote?
"It is clear that one is a gentleman's game played by hooligans; the other a hooligan's game played by gentlemen." - Chancellor of Cambridge University when asked to sum up a debate on Association and Rugby after confessing complete ignorance of all football. Source LunarLander // talk // 17:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Rugby Ball

In the sub section 'Rugby Ball' the picture is actually of an American football. This should be changed to an actual Rugby ball Greneath (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Popularity

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

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

Rugby Union remains and has always been a resolutely middle class activity in southern England (by that I mean London and the South East)it is completely alien to working-class people in that area (despite rugby unions geographical proximity to them to southern working class people it is as alien as it would be to those in the North).I know this from my many years living in the south east in working class areas.And because Rugby League has never taken off in the south unfortunately(?). Rugby per se has little presence in the lives of working-class (or even lower middle class)people in the south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.213.62 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, can/do players transfer from one type of Rugby to the other? Do club Rugby League players in Australia play on the National Rugby Union team? Given that the Rugby Union World Cup seems to be the third most popular sporting event after the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, maybe the article could state that at the national levels, Rugby Union is more popular, while the popularity of professional club teams depends on the location (if this statement is true). -- Jeff3000 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Players do change codes (see Iestyn Harris, Andrew Farrell, Chev Walker) but will only play one at a time (i.e. a Rugby League player wouldn't be found in the Australian national Rugby Union team). The closest integration would be at clubs like Leeds and Harlequins where coaches are shared between the League and Union sides and youth, or maybe even peripheral players may try both codes before finding a place in one of the squads. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 07:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That is a different kettle of fish because traditionally international rugby league was alot more popular than international rugby union, though today in Australia the situation changed in the 90's to the point that rugby union was indisputably the no.1 international sporting team of the country(cricket aside). Today it is slowly changing back at the international level to leave a slightly ambiguous situation, international rugby union will draw big crowds everywhere in Australia, but international rugby league will generally recieve much higher ratings on t.v. than union's top event, the Bledisloe Cup. At club level and cultural level it is indisputably rugby league (rugby union has not really expanded its influence in the traditional football states since the end of the last world cup ad has gone backwards in some ways whereas league is moving forward very quickly). Super 14 attendances in Australia do not match the top 18 NRL crowds at all although 5 years ago they exceeded them. Also htere are only 3or4? super 14 teams that represent states and territories where as there are 15 NRL teams that are either Sydney football clubs and represent localities in Sydney or are one city teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

"That is a different kettle of fish because traditionally international rugby league was alot more popular than international rugby union" is clearly written by an Australian. Rugby League is only bigger than Rugby Union in Australia and Papau New Guinea. International Rugby Union has been a strong source of popularity for the past 100 years plus; but in League it has happened on a much smaller scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.224.41 (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


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

Section on Rules?

I see from the above talks that in 2004 and 2005 there was such a section that expanded on the subject of rugby rules. Even though i can imagine how that could be "taken out" of this article to form its own (maybe because in time it grew to out-of-proportion coverage), i would believe this page should still LINK to that spin-off article... As it stands, i specifically looked at every instance of the word "rules" in this page, and none of them links to anywhere. Could anyone please correct this?

Should i post a similar note on the project's page, for a better visibility of this issue? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Culture and... humour?

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

In Britain at the time there were generally two categories of sportsmen, known in Cricket as Gentlemen, and Players, the two categories being basically divided between those who were of 'independent means', i.e., were rich, and those who were not and had to go out and work for a living. This also influenced the division between 'Amateur' and 'Professional' sportsmen later on. The fact that the 'gentlemen' players could afford (if they so wished) to do nothing but play their sport all day, whereas the 'players' had to divide their practice time between playing the game and going out and working for a living, meant that any game between the two was deemed unfair, as the 'gentlemen' had an unfair advantage in being able to practice as much as they desired. This is why British sport has often distinguished between professional and amateurs, the latter were originally wealthier sportsmen and women who could afford to practice their sport as-and-when-desired.
As the organised sports developed it became more and more difficult for 'players' to practice enough to reach the same level of performance as 'gentlemen' who had as much time as they wished to practice. So professionalism was brought in, so that players on low incomes (relatively speaking) could earn a living playing the games full time. Hence the division between Rugby Union and Rugby League, but it also applied to Cricket and Association Football (Soccer). It may be a bit confusing as originally it was the 'gentlemen' (the original amateurs in the current sports sense) who were the wealthiest, and who went to schools like Rugby, the 'players' the least well off, and who were likely middle or working class. Today in most sports it's usually the 'professionals' who are rich, and the 'amateurs' who are often short of money and playing their sport on a budget. It used to be the other way round.
Later as a sort of vernacular backlash against opponents to professionalism in sport, the term 'amateur' gained a pejorative meaning, but it simply means one who does something for the love of doing it.
But that's more or less how it started. The division between professional and amateur also applies to other sports like Rallying, athletics, and similar, as originally it was only the wealthiest who could afford to participate. Later professionalism took over the pinnacles of sports achievement that had previously been held by the wealthy amateurs, much to the disgust of the latter, as they were from then-on effectively excluded from top status, hence the later snobbery against 'professionals' in the area of sports - professional sport tends to attract the best talent and no amount of money can buy a second-rate sportsman a way to the top. Usually. People may think that today's professional sportsmen and women are 'overpaid' - e.g., Soccer, Formula One, but back then - and probably still today - schools like Eton, Harrow, and Rugby had 'amateur' sportsmen whose families were today's equivalent of multi-billionaires.
So, expecting a miner from Wales or Northern England, who spent twelve hours a day down the pit, to play a sport on a similar level as someone who did nothing for a living, was a bit much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.249 (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rugby football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the poor Intro picture with a better one

Sports article generally have a photo or illustration of the sport in question in the intro rather than a photo of the school/place where the sport was invented. So I was bold and moved the photo of the Rugby School down to the history section and the photo of the Australian Rugby players in action up to the intro section. The action photo does IMO give a general idea of what Rugby is despite the difference in Rugby Union and Rugby League rules since they share enough similarities for the Australian Rugby photo to be more appropriate. --2601:644:400:8D:F028:EB12:6D12:8388 (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

McIntyre_System

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

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


-- are the scores of 'extras' which follow offenses against the code of rugby regulations scored in accordance with the relative distances of each try, or is there a standardized score? (is anyone familiar with this rule?), and what is the length of time which is assigned to the kicking/scoring of extras? are all offenses judged equally in respect to these regulations .. ? -- guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.224.31 (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rugby football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

introductory section (first)

This article needs an introductory section (a rather large one with copious wiki links) which says something like "Rugby is a sport with many variations. For the purposes of this introduction $most_popular_version will be described. Rugby is played by two opposing teams with $number_of_players per side. The object of the game is to (score more points than the other side within an allotted time? or whatever it is). The way points are scored is to blah blah. It is illegal to blah blah. Blah blah blah."

As an American NFL fan newly interested in rugby, I don't (yet) care at all that there were disputes between some class or nation or branch or whatever in 1870 or 1895 or whatever. First, I want to know why and how to play the game and/or assistance with interpreting what I see. Then I may become interested in the more generalized social and historical aspects of the game and the details of the competing versions.

If there is such an article, please point it out to me and others at the top of the article in addition to a link about the size and shape of the ball.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.158.92 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've finally found the article(s) I was looking for - it/they should at least be prominently linked early in the article, if not synopsized.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.158.92 (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
It never occurred to me to read the American_football article until now but that's exactly what I'm talking about. The first paragraph starts with a description of the objective. Admittedly, a history section follows, but it is very brief and points to the main article. Then it continues by going into much more detail about Rules, Players, Strategy, before getting into more miscellaneous topics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.158.92 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"Rugby is a sport with many variations." Not really, and Wikipedia (and this article) often is misleading in this respect. Rugby league is not a variety of rugby union, it's wholly separate sport, just as American football (which also has a rugby common ancestor) is. Using the tern rugby (or rugby football) to describe both has similar currency to using hockey as a catch all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.125.138 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
although I don't know anything about rugby myself (I'm in the same boat as the anonymous user that started the thread: I know nothing and want to learn), i can say this much: he's right about the lead paragraph needing to be better at introducing the topic. Instead of explaining the history of how the two branches separated (although this is obviously important if they are as different as 58.96.125.138 said), explain what they have in common. If that can't be done, this page needs to be split/renamed/disambiguated; if there is nothing in common, they don't belong on the same page.--Macks2008 (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The latter is closest to the mark. In particular, the table that blithely mixes league and union together is ridiculous, and as mentioned before, Wikipedia is a serial offender at this. If you want to know about union: rugby union, if you want know about league: rugby league. They are two different sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.79.160 (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Well there has obviously got to be some overlap between the two besides being variants of football, otherwise this article would not exist, right? That's what I'm most interested in currently. Is there anything that could be put in the lead paragraph to better introduce people like myself to what the two sports have in common? Or is it literally just "they used to be the same sport, but then they branched off", like what the paragraph currently says?--Macks2008 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Anything in this article should be in the history/gameplay etc. family of articles for each sport. On this page, they are being mashed together (that baffling table in particular), then have to be separated in each section because they are surprise, surprise, different sports. Or the section only refers to union, further confusing the uninitiated reader.

disambiguation

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

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

I disagree Philip. More disambiguation and reconciliation of the pages is needed, but a disambiguation page need not be a stub. The Rugby Union and Rugby League pages should be bigger, but there was half a century of history before the split occurred, and the early history belongs on this page as much as anywhere else
You say "The major argument about duplication of data is not so much disk space as accuracy." I'm sure there are lots of discrepancies between Wikipedia pages. So what? In most cases they are easily fixed and are not likely to be reproduced widely.
The silly (but innocuous) stuff about "alickadoos" and "old farts" should probably be on the Rugby Union page, if anywhere, but that's about all that I would change at the moment.Grant65 (Talk) 17:34, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

History of Rugby Football

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

Nice job on your creation of History of Rugby League BUT I think that the page History of Rugby Football should not contain any details: See my comments on Talk:Rugby_football#disambiguation:
If Wikipedia is to be a credible alternative encyclopaedia, then discrepancies (error) matter. The more pages containing the same information the more work in maintain them and the greater the chance that errors will creep in. This is why I think we should reduce the paragraphs to summaries if they are described in detail on other pages and those pages should be included as easily accessible links.
So I would like to make History of Rugby Football a disambiguated page.
It is probably better that you reply there so that others who have an interest in this can see the conversation. Philip Baird Shearer 13:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would say that we should consider Rugby before the schism as a seperate sport from the two new games. It should not be forgotten that by 1904 there were more rugby league clubs that rugby union clubs in England [7]. If we are to make History of Rugby Football a disambiguation page then BOTH pages (RL & RU) should include information about earlier times - we should not give the (rugby union official line) impression that RL is simply an offshoot of RU, it is a game in its own right with equal claim to the pre-1895 history of rugby.Grinner 14:02, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies that I appear to have wandered into something of debate here; there was no discussion on the History of rugby union page, so I felt justified in making bold changes. Had I come here first I probably would of steered clear!
PBS, I'm not quite clear on what you are suggesting, can you clarify your ideas please. Surely you're not saying that RL and RU do not each deserve their own history page?Grinner 08:46, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

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

  1. On Hru restore the information from the HR article.
  2. On HRL summarise the history of Rugby before the RL/RU schism, links to Football and Hru for more details. This can be done with links in the text like it is in the current first paragraph of the HR for Football. Add more to the history of RL since the Schism: For example how did RL organise its self internationally (like the IRB) paragraph in the Hru.
  3. Make the History of Rugby a disambiguation article links to History of rugby union and History of Rugby League
  4. decide whether capitalise or do not capitalise all but the first words in the title so that they are consistent.
  5. Cut down the history paragraphs in the Rugby Football, Rugby Union and Rugby League pages to a summary of the contents of the history articles. Philip Baird Shearer 10:25, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, I think I can live with that, though any wording that sugggests that the schism was a minor side point in the history of rugby union will get re-written pretty swiftly!
Now capitalisation - I have always written Rugby League, this seems to be common for in League Express and the RFL, conversley Rugby Union authorities do not capitalise. Personally I much prefer the capitals, but I accept that for titles the concensus is only capitalise first letter (History of rugby league, not history of Rugby League).Grinner 10:57, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

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

the dates of previous signatures don't appear to be in what I understand is the "accepted" format for archive bots to search for (the months are abbreviated and sometimes put after the day), which probably explains why it's still here. Although the conversation is still arguably relevant (see my reply earlier today on the section "introductory section (first)" concerning how confusing this article currently is to those of us trying to learn from nothing), no one has replied for years aside from now, so if an archive bot doesn't pick this up after I sign and the thread goes dead again, could someone please do so instead? It's kind of silly to have a 14 1/2 year old thread still on the main talk page. We have enough teenagers running around on this site without including unarchived conversations ;-)--Macks2008 (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

More Info Please

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

Try adding what you know. (There's more at Rugby Union and the other codes.) Tristanb
Also alickadoos? What??? This must be a regional expression, it should probably state that in the paragraph. I'm gonna leave it though :-) Tristanb 10:08, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

France?

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

On Rugby History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRB members

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

I included it because it seemed to complement (and expand) the union paragraph in the General description. If you REALY think it is inapropriate and causes clutter then I shall not re-instate it if you remove it.Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It does seem a bit 'cluttery' to me, particulary because of the huge number of dead links, but I'll not remove it just yet. Anyone else got any opinions? Grinner 13:07, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Rugby (footy)

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

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

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

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

Note

There should be a section on deaths and injuries caused by rugby.

Well, then go ahead....find reliable sources and edit away. Lectonar (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
See https://physioworks.com.au/Injuries-Conditions/Activities/rugby-union-injuries

Suggestion to modify table in Establishment of modern rugby

The table is 9 pages long.

  • I suggest adding mw-collapsible mw-collapsed to the table so that the overall article is more readable.
  • Also, change the column 2 heading from "Event" to "Historical Timeline Event".

If no one objects to this change, I'll go ahead and make the modification in a week or so. Bobsd (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Shape of ball

I admit to not being sure what shape to call a rugby ball, but I am 100% sure that "diamond shape" is a very bad choice; that ball is nothing like any of the shapes that are called "diamond". It would seriously be better to say "Vaguely cylindrical-ish, roundedly pointy at the ends, and notably non-pointy in the middle" LOL. Someone must know a shape description for the rugby ball that's essentially correct, understandable, and not as stupid-sounding as mine. (Just watch, someone will refute this by showing a diamond that's been cut in the shape of a rugby ball. :) ) TooManyFingers (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I can conceive of the fact that a two-dimensional drawing of the cut edge of a cross-section through the smallest diameter of a partly-deflated ball sort of gives a diamond shape, but the article should describe the shape of the whole ball in proper condition. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rugby_football/Archive_1&oldid=1256313492"