I'm not sure it's neccessarily about the number of tries, but the intent of the play. In RU there is a sense at times that teams are building toward getting a kickable penalty/drop goal, rather than working space to use to secure a try. No better evidence than advantage being played in kickable range and rather than going flat out for a try we see a rushed drop goal attempt. Professionalism/conservatism?
For me RL is a much better sport to watch and play. I love the full blooded hits rather than a big fella taking contact whilst looking for the ground and all his mates jumping in to help.

Just my opinion of course.

Number of tries does not come into it, nor what I said. The purpose should be to score tries though, and that is what Rugby League does at all times. Infact in the majorite of cases now Rugby League players do not take penalties at goal anymore, and instead choose to press home the advantage. Nobody can say the same with Northern Hemisphere Union.

At junior level they don't even kick a ball in Union until they are 11 and we don't coach it, and you don't have penalty goal attempts until 13. 90% of all scoring at junior level is through tries. So I guess that must mean it's "rugby" then.

I find it hard to evaluate the game without my league hat on, but thats what you have to. the game is completely different in approach, and key rules, and that is why the tactics are different. I think when most RL fans look at trying to make RU, they just seem to end up trying to make the game more like RL.

the game is massively territory based, and ground has grafted for. there are no 10m defensive lines for attackers to piggy back on. You don't get the huge runs, with no consideration for what happens after the collision, because if you get isolated, or dominated you lose the ball, and may not get it back. The reason that teams kick away possession so much is that its better for the opposition to have the ball on the halfway line, than it is for you to have it in your own 22, as an infrigement costs 3 points.

The problem I see with the game is that the balance of tries and penalties is not right. But I think its a chicken and egg situation the game can't escape. at about 50% the value of a try a penalty is a decent way of scoring points. Reduce the value, and it becomes more beneficial to infringe and ruin the game.

In a game (and most northern hemisphere games are like this) where you set the stall out to win through a grind, and fewest mistakes wins, then tries make a massive difference. THats where england came unstuck, their game plan was blown apart when Wales scored, because the game suddenly went from a game of attrition, and territory, to being over in a matter of minutes

I was referring to the comment by Jerry Chicken about RU's biggest critics, and I was suggesting that these critics were perhaps being a little knee jerk with comments about number of tries, when it is more about the intent to score tries as you suggest Gotcha.

Why are you singling out Northern Hemisphere rugby union? In any part of the world you take points on offer.

If you or I were king of the forest, this may be true. However neither of us has it in their gift to arbitrate as to what is and isn't rugby.

RL has been telling the world how much better it is because it has more tries for as long as I can remember. This futile attempt to tell people what they want doesn't seem to have lead to RL replacing RU in the national pecking order.

Given that we can't take the decision amongst ourselves to decide that RU isn't rugby (their code is as old as ours is after all) and telling the public what they ought to want hasn't worked, perhaps we should look harder at the off-field areas RU is kicking our s on.

In most schools across the country, RU is Rugby. So a child's first experience is often playing RU, then they watch a game in front of a packed crowd like the one on Saturday and there is no wonder that an empty stand at a flood lit, rain soaked game on a Saturday evening fails to catch their imagination. RL is getting better at it's youth involvement, but in the South Yorkshire area I live 3 of 6 local clubs have gone to the wall in the last 10 years and a further 2 were very close to going under. There are a couple of very professional RU clubs locally who seem to be doing a lot of the right things and have booming youth set ups, that are often well funded by some of the more financially secure from the local area.
Somehow the RL media machine(!?!) needs to compete for the attention of these kids.

Beacause people talk on here about the fact that League and Union is two different games and we should see it that way. For me Southern Hemisphere union is not that many miles different in a lot of ways to league, and is heavely influenced by league.

The two different hemispheres version of union is miles apart, so therefore I single out Northern Hemisphere for the critisism.

I'd agree that the intent in Southern Hemisphere RU is much more try first; kicks second. They appear run better attacking structures at pace that create the chance for tries, which in turn lifts the defensive intensity of the opposition.

I'm not sure how much of it is really different intent. I think there's still a bit of a skill deficit in northern hemisphere RU. England have looked willing to move the ball (when they have quick ball) but execution of the plays has been a bit stilted or let down by poor execution.

I think there is an extra element of conservatism in Northern Hemisphere RU, which seems to be a game plan much more reliant on grinding out the win. It is probably true to say that this is governed by the skill deficit.

Yep, I think they could do with either using the scrum half better (ie more than just an farming out the ball at the back of rucks and mauls) as a first (with stand off as 2nd) or 2nd receiver. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen an overlap or a good attacking position wasted. The ball comes out of the ruck/maul to the stand off who seems to want to spread the play by passing it, only for the next receiver to either pass the ball back inside or simply drive it in himself. If they had another half or someone with the skills/ability/vision/confidence to exploit the space out wide then I think they'd score far more tries.

I see no difference in the two hemispheres when it comes to policy on kicking penalties for points.

I was away in South Africa first week of March, and went to watch the Blue Bulls on Saturday 2nd. Can't remember who they were playing, force or something I think.

Anyway the Bulls twice, and the other team once, did not take the penalty on offer within 30 yards of goal. The match finished something like 38-27 (can not remember final score). There were tries scored, and the whole intention was scoring tries and entertaining.