The argument that you have just made here is that the game did not split in 1895 and that the NU continued playing the RFU's game. The logic then would be that pre 1895 the NU sides were playing RU and didn't start playing RL until rule reforms came in.

For rugby union to be different to rugby football, the RFU would have had to have changed their rules dramatically at the same time, which of course they did not do.

Personally I don't really care, it is splitting hairs either way.

its important for the history of RL.

RL clubs histories pre date 1895.

to say RL came from RU is basically giving everything over to the RFU.

other than a change in the governing bodies in 1895, little changed to the rugby game for the northern clubs.

over time the game of rugby league as we know it came about but in 1895 there werent any differences.

RU as a sport tries to claim too many things, and the history of the game is important

RL has as much right to the original rugby game as the RFU do.

anything less gives them more credibility than they deserve

when our clubs broke away they took their history with them

Not sure I see your point, though. The Northern Union did start modifying the rules right from the start. Even in the first season, they modified rules (the deliberate knock-on rule was changed in 1895). The northern union scoring system was different from that of the RFU. They also played an experimental game in 1895, with 13 players, a round ball and no lineouts. I just don't see how the fact that our administrators changed rules somehow prevents us from claiming pre-1895 histories? There were huge changes in the rules throughout the preceding 20-30 years too.

not saying you but people tend to think that when we started the game it was very different rules

id rather emphasise that it was basically the same game

the only real difference was the governing body

once you get caught up in many rules changes its like there was a break from the old rugby

there certainly wasnt

especially as the big rule changes ie 13 players and the PTB didnt come in till much later, and its these things that represent the game of RL.

Who developed the rules we played, dally? We played to rules developed by the RFU (apart from the odd change), so to say that our game wasn't spawned by rugby union is ridiculous. The RFU was and is the governing body for rugby union. Just because there was no rugby league doesn't mean it was somehow a different sport. It wasn't a divorce. We didn't get half of their stuff. We took our ball and went to play elsewhere.

It seems the only reason you won't admit this is some kind of pride developed from an inferiority complex you have over giving rugby union any sort of credit. They developed the rules and the sport. We broke away and developed our own rules FROM the original rules. Our organisation didn't create the original rules, so why should we claim that we did?

We should be proud of our history, and proud that our clubs played the original rugby before the RFL was formed (and some before the RFU was formed), but the fact is the RFU was established on the back of those original rugby rules, and we were established on the back of those RFU rules.

the game of rugby was played before the RFU was invented you dunce.

have a look at the formation date of Hull FC, nearly 30 years before the NU was formed.

6 years i think before the RFU was formed.

the rules of rugby werent invented by the RFU.

No need to get snipey because you're digging a hole for yourself!

I acknowledged the fact that the RFU were established after the rules of rugby were formed"...the fact is the RFU was established on the back of those original rugby rules..."[/i


Yes, I am also very aware of that. But just because they were formed before the RFU doesn't alter the fact that they played the laws made by the RFU after their formation, and then a competition that split from the RFU based on those laws made from the RFU (and then later the IRFB).


The laws that the Northern Union clubs played were drawn up by the RFU based on the various rules of rugby football floating about prior to that. These were the rules of rugby union. This is the sport they played until the schism. The whole point of the RFU was to unify all the various rules of rugby football so that everyone was playing the same game. So they DID make the rules these clubs were playing following their formation in 1871.

Had the Northern Union been formed on the back of clubs not agreeing to these rules at that time and not playing these rules, then we could have claimed that we weren't evolved from rugby union. But we weren't. We agreed to the rules, played rugby union, broke away, and evolved our rules from their rules. That is how it happened.

[other earlier forms of football]>>>Rugby school football laws (and various formations of these laws)>>>RFU laws>>>IRFB laws>>>Schism.

Unlike rugby union and association football's formations...

[other earlier forms of football]>>>various public school football laws (including Rugby and Eton)>>>Schism>>>Formations of the FA and RFU.

All the laws of the game made before the formation of the FA were based on various forms of football. When they tried to establish the Football Association (to make a unified set of rules), the clubs/schools that disagreed with the rules didn't join the association and carried on playing their respective laws until their own association was formed. Had clubs that played under the "rugby" football laws decided to play under FA rules, then leave the FA and form the RFU but continue to use the laws formed by the FA and altered them as they went along (as we did), then they would have been spawned from association football. But that didn't happened. Our situation did. The RFU have a lot to do with our history and the development of our sport and its laws. You can't alter that fact.

The rules we use today are an evolution of rugby union's laws. They did not descend directly from the laws of rugby school. The branch of the rugby tree splits after, not before the rules of rugby union were established. You cannot alter that part of history.

If we went to a ridiculous two conf system I'd go for: (not necessarily strictly geographically representation!)

North - East Conf
Warriors
Brisbane
NQ
Gold Coast
Manly
Parra
Newcastle
CC Bears
Roosters

South - West conf
Bulldogs
Wests
Penrith
St George
Souths
Cronulla
Storm
Canberra
Perth

Most of them do.



No more than saying that RL came from "football" is giving everything over to the FA.



Oh I agree, the clubs "own" their pre-1895 history. However, rugby union did not suddenly become a different game from "rugby football" in 1895. It was pretty much business as usual.

Arguing when this-or-that rule changed is really only about the precise date that rugby league separated from rugby union / rugby football. It doesn't alter that pre-1895 we were playing by the RFU's rulebook and that no dramatic rule changes happened to the RFU's game around that time.

I don't see any of this affects the heritage of teams like Huddersfield that predate the schism.

problem is the FTA TV would only show the NSW conference games and the oceanic conf would get very little TV exposure. Also the travel factor would be grossly unfair on the oceanic conf and would play a major part in team performance come play off time. The NSWRL already think they run RL, giving them their own conference would make it even worse!

I was considering that as a problem. But wouldn't the rights be sold as a whole, and couldn't there be a clause in the contract to show equal number of games from both conference? Just think it would be better if there were more "big games" to show for the TV figures.

Also, I thought the IC was taking over all the little governing bodies pottering about?

Well said dally,the club that I support started in 1873 way before the NU broke away from RU.
We have as much right to the history of rugby as union does and as you say it is important to the history of our game

This is RL and TV rules. FTA now has bias towards Sydney clubs (understandably as that is the biggest TV audience) and clubs like Storm and Raiders rarely get any FTA exposure. Only way to ensure it would be to split the Sydney clubs up. For all the talk of rivalary many all Sydney affairs draw crowds no different to when they play out of town teams. There are some exceptions but mostly Sydney fans don;t travel in large numbers to away games even within their own city. In terms of IC, in theory yes but the NSWRL, QRL, WARL, VRL, SARL etc etc will all remain with the NSWRL and QRL having voting rights on the IC. If there is one thing I've learnt about RL administration its that the pigs never move far from the trough!

Nobody has said we don't and only an idiot would think we didn't.

That's not the point being argued.

The point being argued is that dally is saying rugby league wasn't spawned from rugby union. Which is complete rubbish. It isn't important to the history of rugby league to pretend that that didn't happen.