I would agree with Dawson when he said Rugby League on tv could be portrayed differently. I think the little differences you see from teams in how they run there lines and the tactical nuance is not covered enough when you watch Rugby League.

Not everyone who watched Rugby League knows why certain plays are made and why certain players do things but I dont think the tv coverage does a good job of explaining why or showing clear examples for people to see.

I think the speed of the game probably means it is more difficult as we dont have downtime in League and there is no time when the game really stops unlike Union or NFL for instance. Whenever I watch NFL the things the commentators do after each play and each touchdown is epic. Real high end top notch stuff which sometimes only last a few secs but really breaks the play down and why it was a success or failure. If you were new to NFL and watch that you could at least get an basic understanding. If we could get stuff like that I think it would be amazing!!

The differences between say the Rugby League weekly show and the Union weekly show on Sky is quite big. The Union show is much more high tech and similar to the football shows but the League one isnt. I dont understand why not and should be addressed.

He was also making the comparison that League is much better live than on tele and union is much better on tele than live. For the reasons given tele can't do justice to league but can buff up union. Does this tie up too with a recent observation from M. Sadler, where a newcomer to both found league too fast to get a grip on?

As League fans watching it on tele we can fill in the gaps. The neutral (literally) doesn't know what he's missing.

I think the debate was quite insightful. Mainly because it showed that those who had an open mind and watched both games, found both to be good to watch. That isn't a co-incidence.

Those who have a blinkered view and never watch the other code but somehow thought themselves capable to debate which is better came up with arguments such as "In league there is no tactical play" and "Union full-backs just kick the ball to each other again and again".

The way I see it, having played both but coming from a staunch League background, they both involve passing, kicking, running, tackling etc. etc... How can you hate one with a passion and love the other when they share such similar skills (as a game of course, discounting the social history). If you love one, you would at least find the other of some interest if you sat and tried to understand it. In saying that, the parochialism of our fans is a great element to our game, so in some ways I would rather keep that and be able to enjoy most sports myself...

I've played both sports to a decent level, I still have a hatred for pro rugby union. Why?
1. Because it is an elitist sport played almost exclusively by elite public schoolboys, and I harbour a deep hatred toward the public school system and the unfair advantages it provides for the wealthy.

2. Because that sport attempted to deny rightful payments to players before the birth of TGG, due to their wealthy, advantageous position.

3. Because that sport attempted to destroy rugby league

4. Because it is inherently unfair to see such relatively unskilled players of a sport receive disproportionate media coverage/wages etc compared to such skilfull and exciting players in TGG.

The NFL and football also include passing, kicking, running, tackling etc, it doesn't make them the same sport or equal in some way.
I thoroughly enjoyed playing Union, but then I also thoroughly enjoyed whacking one out over the fit bird in Scrubs. It doesn't mean it should be a spectator sport.

I've never thought of it this way but it is a great way of looking at things. Most League fans (particularly the ones who frequent this forum) have a strong knowledge of the game.

How many times have you had the sheer displeasure of being subjected to an overweight, balding, three-lions tattoo idiot's opinions on football which he knows nothing about?

At least folk who don't know anything about RL tend not to blindly follow it to fit in. It'd be nice for it to stay that way.

Exactly my point really, all of your points have nothing to do with the game on the field. The debate was "the games of Rugby League and Rugby Union". As you say, your thoroughly enjoyed playing Union, so taking away the social and historical aspect, which is what I said in my first post, I fail to see how, as a game, people can love one and hate the other.

As for the NFL, I'd look at Earth and Mars as the separation of the codes of Rugby and the NFL languishing somewhere beyond Pluto in their relationship as sports. They don't even pass backwards and play in 2 set line of attack and defense so not sure how you can bring the NFL into it.

It is now thanks to the power of t'internet

No-one wants to see that, I even felt a little bit sick halfway through.
I don't think anyone really "hates" Union or League based on the on-field play. They might not like it, or, as in my case, find one deadly boring to watch. If I didn't hate pro Union for the historical/social aspects I'd still not like it because I find it very dull and relatively unskilled.

As for the NFL, well that includes running, passing, tackling etc, whilst another step further away it illustrates the point that just because some sports share some similar skills/techniques it doesn't make them similar. The tackling, passing, running, kicking etc in Union is taught/performed in quite a different manner to the passing, running, tackling etc in League.

League is a better game, Union has a better profile and marketing

Nothing more to say without ranting

+1

I'm sure you knew this already, but of course when rugby was first developed there were NO points for a try. Getting the ball over the line simply entitled you to a 'try' at kicking the goal, hence the word, try.

League puts a product on the field that I genuinely believe ( impossible to be impartial of course ) the proverbial 'martian', who'd never seen any sport in his life, would rate as one of the best. However, the 'product' is second to what you grow up with and what the media bombard you with day in day out. Basketball, I mean, come on...its a *ridiculous* spectacle, and baseball, well, it's just cricket with all the good bits taken out - but they're loved by millions.

For most people, sport is *way* more than what's on the field, it's about the back stories, the rivalaries, comebacks, feuds, tantrums, etc. etc. Sometimes I think the RFL, etc. are almost too 'Olympian' ,if you like, about the game. Some may admire that, but I agree with that player last year (who for the life of me I can't remember) who said that perhaps the RFL should focus more on marketing the players rather than the game per-se. I couldn't agree more. Papers need stories, rivalries, etc. to get their teeth into.

.There are a couple things that would help rugby league come even better

1 referees to being so helpful to the big clubs (having a vested instead in the result

2 clamp down on forward passing

3 scrums to be completive again (instead of having players pushing each other to win the play, just have the two hookers striking for the ball when the scrum half throws the in the middle of the scrum

4 vastly reduce the number of overseas player maybe 3 overseas the most

I genuinely tried to watch international union once. It appeared to be a penalty-ridden game of fatty-pile-on, with no-one carrying the ball forward, and then just randomly kicking at goal. My brother-in-law tells me that there is no limit to how many times you can be at the bottom of the fatty-pile-on heap before having to give the other team a go.
I didn't get it at all. Thanks for the link to the show