Us northerners carry a chip on each shoulder...so has to have a balanced view.





The sexist comment is rather typical of the southerners code IMHO.



(Union) Forward "play" LOL now that's really funny.

As a long time player of both games they do both have merits. I love Union, but I think the scrums are a mess, and take up far too much of the game. When the ball is in play the game is fun to play, and can be very dynamic.



In terms of competitive I think this is the right word. the nature of the game means that two teams can be mismatched but with a few decent players in certain positions can compete in a game by slowing it down. That does not exist in League, there is no hiding place.



This can give the impression that Union is a more interesting game because games are usually closer and therefore have tension. In league there are fewer really close games but when they are they are corkers.



A recent example being the Semis and Final weekends at the RLWC. One an a mismatch, and it resulted in the biggest margin of the tournament. The other semi was two good teams going at it hammer and tongs. However good that game was, the quality was not a jot on what Australia produced the following week, yet as a spectacle it was poor due to the one sided nature.



In short there are many way that people can get enjoyment through sport, and the two sports tend to provide different ways of getting that

Think you have to consider what is time in play. Pro union adjudicators would suggest that the ball is not in play from the referees call of held until the actual PTB. Their argument would be that the union ruck is still in play. If you assume 300 tackles at 3 seconds from the shout of held until the PTB that is 900 seconds or 15 minutes.



I'm sure detailed analysis would change figures further.

What happens at the breakdown is key to both sports. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge taht doesn't know enough about either sport

I agree, I am just arguing from a union perspective. At the breakdown in union the ball is in play and the defending team can compete for possession. At the breakdown in league the ball is not in play once the referee calls held and the defending team cannot compete for possession. Any union supporter looking at the stats offered above would immediately claim the figures were biased and therefore not worth consideration.

Indeed, and if you wished to argue the point you could show that whenever a referee needs to stop play (for an injury elsewhere on the pitch for instance) he will stop it at the next PTB, which is where the game has naturally stopped in its momentum.



There is still only one set of stats which break down the stoppage times and explains how the measurements were made and that is the one that I linked to and I'll say it again, removing the two elements that are unique to RU still leaves a lot of stoppage time for both codes, more time in fact than any other RL stats are prepared to admit to.

No there isnt one set of stats.











Yes the ball is still live at the Union breakdown ruck or maul, but so is the ball still live at the League PTB.



It must be "live" because the ref can penalise any infractions either by the attack or defence.

It isn't live because the teams cannot compete for the ball. The referee is penalising the teams for interference, which can be penalised whether the ball is in play or not.

You're not reading again - break those occurrences down into their own time components like the stats I gave you do.

You're not reading again.





Of course the ball is live at the PTB.



If the attacker drops the ball its a knock on. If the defender steals the ball its a penalty.

Seems our so-called "parochial" game is offically recognised as one of the 5 top sports in the country.

If the ball is stolen /interfered with in RU it is also a penalty. I've seen this happen at a scrum, at a lineout at a penalty, therefore I again suggest that you are taking two different criteria to judge the two games.

Would you like to look back and see how many posts are made every season or how many times a Superleague coach or captain (even ours) b!tches after a game around the "farcical" nature of the RL play the ball and it's random refereeing interpretations over the last few years? Don't start slinging mud when you are sitting in a pile of horse $h!t.



The RU scrum is the way it is at the moment because the Australians and the Kiwis finished a dismal 7/8 in the WC in 2007 and tried to take out of the game all the contests they were weak at - the scrum being the major one, the lineout and the ruck and maul were also "optimised" by tinkering with the laws and their interpretations to give them an even better chance of beating the European teams (NZ hadn't won a WC since 1987 and they were in bits over it).



Yes, the RU scrum was a foregone conclusion in years past, but if you had a good scrummage you got good ball to attack with going forward (simple rugby principles that apply to a quick PTB in league as well), but if you had a poor scrum you got poor ball - going backwards. And up until we had the more recent rule tinkering the defensive line at a scrum was level with the back foot of the Number 8 so bad ball was really bad ball, now they have to retire 10 metres to reduce the problem of crap ball and allow the likes of Australia and NZ the space to play.

What we have had recently in Union (not that you seem to be interested in understanding - just slagging off) is the scrum being used - particularly by Australian teams - as a way to win penalties. Aided by a generation of referees from the Southern hemisphere who have no idea what a scrum contest looks like, the whole thing is a complete debacle. It's finally becoming the issue it should have been several years ago, finally even the Kiwis are realising the Australians are full of Kangaroo dung and the sight of Ben Alexander mysteriously losing his footing at every scrum and claiming he was pulled down is wearing thin on them as well. It's going to change.



We get it, you don't like Rugby Union, watching it or the history of it's interraction with RL, but being grossly ignorant of the way the game is played and why it is the way it is isn't really an argument.

Really?



Laws of the Game 2013:

Section 11: The tackle and Play The Ball:



Regain feet (b) The tackled player shall without delay regain his feet where he was tackled, lift the ball clear of the ground, face his opponent’s goal line and drop or place the ball on the ground in front of his foremost foot.

I look forward to your timed breakdown of those components in the link that you quoted from but just to save yourself the trouble don't bother looking because they don't exist, I looked at them initially but dismissed them for that very reason.

I wouldnt hold your breath.









You make a lot of incorrect assumptions there.





I just happen to "prefer" to watch a faster more dynamic and skillfull version of the handling code thats all.



I dont mind the game of RU at all if there is nothing better to watch that is. Prefer it to Soccer or Cricket.

Yes you are right it wasn't his first game and he did look a quality player with one of the best side steps I have seen. He was victim to the thuggery that most RU stars had to put up with from average League players who were jealous of the signing on fees and were too dim to realise that these stars could help to bring them some of the benefits of success.



PS: Rees also played professional cricket for Glamorgan for more than 10 years and was an excellent fielder. He came on as a sub fielder at Headingley in a Test against Australia and caught a good catch off Fred Trueman.

One of the main differences between the codes is that Union has retained competition for the ball and League has not. Quite how you equate this with brute force I do not understand. Ken Dalby must have taken you for Maths and not rugby. You say you played both games but your cheap short "simple minded" remark would suggest otherwise!



I enjoy the competition for possession in Union despite the difficulties it now has refereeing it at a professional level. I recall when League had contested scrums and PTBs (well sort of) and I have some regrets that we have lost that.



The two codes have the same basic skills yet are strategically and technically quite different games. I prefer League but that is not to state it is better. Since the era of summer rugby we can all enjoy and be frustrated by both so why prolong the war?

Lighten up folks...

it was a tonque in cheek quipe... hence the smilie.





apologies if it caused any offence.





Your right, RL and more so SL, have mostly removed competing directly for the ball but it is retained to some degree albeit indirectly by applying pressure and poor position to the opposition. Forcing the error now being the prescribed method and the very occasional ball steal one on one.



Yes the basic skills are similar and I agree RU is more of a strategic game played up and down the touch lines generally but for me its too pedestrian for large periods. That's just my personal view by the way.



I did like the Old Leo`s approach when on tour, according to my brother a life long member, they would instigate a NO KICKING rule....





Ken Dalby was our Maths teacher but he used to excuse us lessons if we were training.





LOVE this anecdote........

Oscar winner Colin Welland sums it up. He's at England v Oz semifinal 1991. Rob Andrew kicks a last minute drop goal and England win. Another in the Royal Box say " wouldn't you just love Rob Andrew in Rugby League, "

Colin..."and what the f%$k would we do with him for other 79 minutes"



Just kidding folks

Ken Dalby (KD) taught me Maths too (or was it 2?) and also coached the school Union team and took the matches on a Saturday morning. After the Saturday morning matches several of us would grap some lunch and head for Headingley to watch our heros at Leeds RL. (it was Saturday fixtures in those days)



Ironic really, but I learnt my RL on Becketts Park while at Headingley CP from a Scottish teacher who was brought up on Union. (he later taught/coached a young Schofield in south Leeds) and at secondary school learnt Union from KD who was a former Leeds RL manager, noted club historian and life long fan. Perhaps explains my love of both codes but preference for League.

I think it was the head teacher Mr Mathews who mostly soured my view of the Union Game, He banned us playing League and so we played Union against mostly Grammer Schools. Huddersfield Grammer Pudsey Grammer and the like.



Mr Dalby introduced us to Rugby League and we played Union for the school Saturday mornings. RL U17s Saturday afternoons and later RL open age on Sunday mornings.



I have always preferred RL but comparing it to Union is a bit like Apples and Oranges really.



Ken Dalby told us there were only 2 things that were the same in each code. The posts and the grass.

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/25314912

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/25314912

Union (much like football) is a sport where it's too easy for the inferior side to stifle the ambitions of the superior one by denying them possession and taking time out of the game. Something which it's much harder to do in League.

The main attraction for me with RL is that the attacking side can only go forward hence the game is more dynamic and fluid and there isn't the option of simply retaining possession to deny the opposition the ball as in soccer and to some extent RU

The problem with trying to retain the ball in union for the sole purpose of denying the opposition possession is that its impossible to keep that up for 80 minutes and unlike football you cannot switch that tactic on when you go one score up, all it takes is for a succession of two or three rucks to draw in all of your forwards to maintain the possession and hold up play for as long as you can and suddenly your defensive line is horribly exposed to a mistake and a switch of possession.



Its often been compared to a game of chess, you just need to understand the rules and be patient.