Fair points all but there is an old saying "know when your beat".

We may be in the right but it's long since become a pointless exercise. Just my opinion but I'd drop Rugby all together and just call it League incorperating the Super League so that when people say League they mean us.

We should drop Rugby and probably League as well.

We live in a branding age.

We need a unique identity. Probably a unique word as many new brands use.

Ideally the letters RL would be in there.

Or 13.

As long as its not ROFL

Did we split away or did the game of 'Rugby' split in two, there's a subtle yet important difference.

I'm interested what 'leaving rugby behind' means....

I always say I'm off to the rugby, we're governed by the Rugby Football League, and our clubs are all Rugby League Football Clubs.

And, as has been pointed out, it was the Northern Rugby Football Union.

It's ridiculous to say there's Rugby (presumably union) and then some game that we play, that we don't have a name for. We're a code of rugby, just as rugby union is a code of rugby, and no one party has sole & exclusive use of that term. The IRB should, in all fairness, be made to be the IRUB, the RWC the RUWC etc. it's only fair, given we already have the RLWC, and are sharing equally the name.

As is, the RLIF and the RFL need to sort things out, particularly with regard to clubs, league structures and international eligiblity. While the state of the NRL is great, the desire amongst all player to pull on an NSW/QLD jersey is killing the game internationally, along with its chances of success.

It's worth recognising that, if SOO rules were amended to residency rather than nationality, then Fthe pacific island sides, as well as all the home nations but England, would get massively stronger. Fix SOO, and bring back GB at our end, so we can have competitive tournaments, and make international RL a regular fixture in the calendar, and play it at stadiums big enough to deserve it, not at bloody Salford.

Within SL, we either need to force mergers, or pursue expansion relentlessly. Either have no Relegation, but have promotion when clubs meet required standards for finance grounds etc; OR merge sides & just have Hull United, Wakefield-Castleford, Warrington-Widnes & Huddersfax.

Disagree. Rugby League broke away from Rugby Football. I don't blame them for using the term "Rugby" without having to add "Union" after it.


International eligibility is fine and mirrors that of other major sports. Whilst there is an issue with regard SOO harming pacific island nations it's only a fairly minor one. The bigger international issue being Australia's unwillingness to help pacific island nations develop by playing against them.


I fail to see how that change in SOO rules would particularly help Pacific Island or home nations to any great degree.
I don't know why you think we haven't had competitive tournaments or regular international fixtures. We've had regular, competitive competitions for over 10 years. Considering Salford wasn't a sell-out, what makes you think the 2nd England v France game in 8 days would have got many more people attending at a bigger stadium?


Mergers will never work and have not worked in British Rugby League. We do need to pursue expansion, but steadily and very carefully.

Aren't Rugby Union and Rugby League both codes of football?

In the strictest sense, no not really, 'handling' a 'ball' was actually as common if not more popular than kicking it way back when.
In villages across the land(England) many games are still played today where an object is carried, thrown etc to take the object from the centre of the village to one place or another. kicking or footing the ball was allowed in the melee but generally the 'ball' was carried.

Of course a football association came along with some rules but I'm more than happy that handling the ball came first

Indeed, the rollocks of Webb Ellis displaying "a fine disregard for the rules" is made up tosh in all possible ways

Other than that Gutterfax makes some good comments

Of course it is......it was created specifically to promote "a history" other than the real one......ie, payments under the table, ruling class sport, life bans etc....which wouldn't have been a good way to sell RWC number one.



aw..shucks.

It's ' Rugby ' Jim , but not as we know it

Maybe ' rugby ' should go back to the original rules , no ' Trys ' , no kicks , be plenty of nil/nil draws that way

Re HIM's post. I disagree that we broke away from Rugby Football. We broke away from Rugby Union Football. They distinctly called themselves that to differentiate them from Association Football. That's why we incorporated the word Union into our original name for our sport as we were initially playing Rugby Union without being under the control of the RFU.

I though it was a "breakaway", which makes me wonder if we should approach McVities for sponsorship