Talk:Comparison of rugby league and rugby union

Vandalism, NPOV etc

Obviously there is an immense chance that this page will generate ridiculous amounts of vandalism and edit wars but I felt that this is a subject more than worthy of an article.

Could contributors please read NPOV before editing and generally try to avoid slagging off the other code. You don't have to like 'kick and clap' or '5 hits and a kick' but try not to show that in your edits.

Please don't use the word 'rugby' without clarifying it as 'rugby union' or 'rugby league' as it will get very confusing.

-- GordyB 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, whoever edited this thing didn't even TRY to observe NPOV! Hey, I'm a Texan, I got absolutely NO dog in the hunt, as we say. Just watching the RWC and trying to figure out the rules. This article didn't help a bit! B. Polhemus (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

See also

I think links to the other comparison articles should be restored. THe articles compares the six tackle rule to the downs system in American football, but there no longer is a link to the Comparison of American football and rugby league.GordyB 07:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"In Australia, both sports are most popular in Queensland, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, and the Australian Capital Territory. Either sport might be referred to simply as "football" or "footy" although those terms are more commonly used in Australia to refer to Australian rules football. Rugby union is usually referred to simply as "rugby" by its followers, who generally refer to rugby league as "league". In other states people refer to both codes as "rugby"."

- As an Australian, I would dispute this entirely. Names for the two codes tend to be regional, and in NSW, in particular, one would use the terms 'league' or 'football' for Rugby League, and the term 'Union' for Rugby Union. I have /never/ observed the use of the word 'Rugby' to describe Union. The terms 'football' or 'footy' are /not/ commonly used to refer to Australian Rules football rather than the other two codes, or at least, are not in NSW, particularly not outside of the Sydney area.Tspork (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Match duration

I think an important aspect that warrants mentioning in this article is the difference in match duration between the two codes. Whilst rugby league is strictly 80 minutes (unless golden point extra time is needed), union matches tend to be extended because of penalty/injury time or whatever.--Jeff79 01:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also true that the ball is in play much more of the time in league than in union. I think 60% of the time the ball is in the stands, in the scrum, at a line-out etc whilst it is about 20% for league. We'll need references though.GordyB 07:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you only need to reference things if they're likely to be disputed. We just need someone who knows enough about union. As long as it's accurate enough it should be alright. (Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_you_add_content)--Jeff79 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary Opener

I'd like to request/recommend that the opening paragraph be preceeded by a new one, in which a short 4-or-5 sentence summary of the differences are described. This would help set the tone for the article, and give the interested reader a starting point/framework through which to understand the rest of the article. This section might, for example, note the differences in scoring and the resulting difference in style of play, the difference in how possession and loss of possession is setup (and the resulting "broad brush" difference in play this results in), and a few other generel things that cover broad areas of the topic. This new paragraph would be something that, if a visitor to the page read only it, they would walk away with a brief, general, and accurate understanding of the differences which are discussed in more depth below. Dxco 16:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added one sentence in the lead section about the principal distinction. I think 4 or 5 would be too many, this section should be kept short. Rexparry sydney 03:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that the purely subjective and speculative judgment that League is more physically demanding be removed, if only for the elimination of contest for the ball which can be excruciatingly tiring in an anaerobic sense. Scrums and mauls are often the most tiring aspect of a union game in that sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.197.8.108 (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the source? It's taken straight from there. You're welcome to find and include sources for your own subjective and speculative points if you wish.--Jeff79 (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the source, it seems biased towards League. Saying "because the ball is in play for an average of 10 minutes longer and there are two less players, therefore League is more physically demanding" is pretty ridiculous. Aerobic exercise is defined as 20 minutes of activity maintaining a heart rate of 70%. Keep in mind, resting rate is 30-35%. The fact that League does not participate in rucks and scrums means that they're basically using the same muscles involved in running; with additional use of stabilizers and smaller muscles such as hip flexors used for cutting and changing direction. It has been, and always will be the case that the most physically demanding activity is the one that requires the largest set of muscles being used. That's the reason boxing was listed as the most demanding sport in the world.

All very interesting. Rather than repeating myself I'll just refer you to Wikipedia:Truth.--Jeff79 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of tackles

I agree that there probably are more tackles in league than union (if only because the ball is in play much more) but the cited numbers are unreferenced and in the case of rugby union almost certainly wrong. There are an awful lot more than 47 tackles per game. I will be removing the numbers unless a source can be found for them.GordyB (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the union numbers are without a doubt wrong. To give some kind of idea this article (http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/centre-of-attention/2008/03/23/1206206925071.html) states that the average amount of tackles made per game so far in the Super 14 per game is 127. Jollyfatmantom (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Advancing the Ball

I have tagged the reference to Union scrums becoming like League scrums with dodgy feeds as Dubious. I have seen no evidence whatsoever, in the media, or personally watching/refereeing games, where the ball is not placed in square (or almost square) AND it is not penalised. This is a far cry from them becoming like League where the ball passes through the legs of the outermost attacker in the scrum to which the comment alludes. GoonerW (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How often have you seen a scrum won against the head at international level? For "almost square" read "squarish". In league, the ball goes into the second row not to the loose forward.GordyB (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

More often than at the top level in League (i.e. often enough that it is a threat to the team with the feed). Keep in mind that the team with the feed, know when the ball is going in and the Hooker is prepared for this. That's the only advantage the attacking team has. If the pack weights are against the feeder, more scrums will be lost against the feed. Most NRL games I have seen in the last 10 years have the scrum feeder thread the ball between the legs of the closest player and almost pick it up in the same motion. How often does the ball come out of a Union scrum almost immediately after it is fed in? Not very often. P.S. Let's try to keep this discussion civil as I can see this one easily getting emotional and railroaded. GoonerW (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit. It would probably be better to keep the opinion of the Union scrum off the NPOV entry until someone can actually cite a source for the claim. GoonerW (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

League doesn't claim to have competitive scrums although I have on occasion seen them lost. In union, the scrum still has some importance with the 2007 World Cup match between England and Australia being a good example but it is less than it used to be. I even have a Player's Guide to the laws of rugby which pours scorn on the idea that referees are enforcing the laws strictly reagrding the put-in.GordyB (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Which book is this? (for reference purposes). Looking at both codes' rule books gives a fair amount of perspective on the subject. Both have rules requiring the feeder to put the ball directly into the tunnel where the Hookers can do their job, yet Union appears to be the only one that lists a penalty for the ball not going in straight. For reference: ARL Section 12.6(a) "The ball shall be put into the scrum from the Referee’s side by holding it in a horizontal position with a point in each hand and rolling it along the ground into the tunnel formed by the opposing front row forwards.". IRB 20.6 (a)The scrum half must stand one metre from the mark on the middle line so that player’s head does not touch the scrum or go beyond the nearest front row player. (b)The scrum half must hold the ball with both hands, with its major axis parallel to the ground and to the touchline over the middle line between the front rows, mid-way between knee and ankle. (c) The scrum half must throw in the ball at a quick speed. The ball must be released from the scrum half’s hands from outside the tunnel. (d) The scrum half must throw in the ball straight along the middle line, so that it first touches the ground immediately beyond the width of the nearer prop’s shoulders. The IRB laws tend to be a bit more verbose in each step and the ARL laws have a certain Monty Python-esqe feel to them. (e.g. Section 6.1 "A try shall count four points.". The IRB laws also have the scrum-half in such a position that he/she can't feed the ball into the scrum the way League does (unless the SH is a master spinner like Warnie). —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoonerW (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a sidenote: the sentence "In [rugby] league... possession is considered more imortant than territory, as a player cannot score without the ball." To the uninitiated, this looks like a player CAN score without the ball in rugby union. I don't think they can. (Well, I suppose a player who is for some unknown reason miles behind the rest of his team but has been tackled and is refusing to let go of the ball could be punished with a penalty try, so techinically it IS possible...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.22 (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Double movement?

The section entitled "Other minor differences in the rules" includes the following statement:

- A player tackled just short of the try-line in rugby union can legitimately reach across it and place the ball down for a try. This is unlikely in rugby league, but still possible.

However, my understanding is that, in rugby league, such a movement would be classed as a 'double movement', the try disallowed, and possession handed over. A player's correct response to a tackle completed 'just short' of the try line is to treat it as any other tackle, stand up, and play the ball to restart the play (frustrating as it may be!) Could someone with a more technical knowledge of the laws of rugby league confirm this? 82.153.203.241 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Mboy

I think you're exactly right. In league no second effort can be made and momentum alone must carry the ball onto the line. Seems like it needs to be re-worded. Wouldn't have a clue about union.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In union once grounded, you have to immediately place the ball away from your body, you can do this forwards as well as backwards. This means that you can reach out and score a try as long as you do so immediately, if you pause and then do it then it is a double movement.GordyB (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In league you can reach and place the ball on/over the try-line provided that you still have momentum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.3.58 (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've made the change.15:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)80.2.63.55 (talk)Mboy

Name in the United States

Do people really think “In countries such as the United States, where neither code of rugby football is very well known, the two forms of the game are rarely distinguished between and 'rugby' could refer to either”? I’d think that, given USA Rugby and college rugby and all that, people mean “union” when they say rugby, if they even know there’s two kinds. Since the word mostly refers to domestic contests, that’s the only way I can remember hearing it used. —Wiki Wikardo 13:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Instances of North American media referring to rugby league as 'rugby':

1. Crowe takes blame for rugby brawl
2. Under "South Side Story": "...The South Sydney Rabbitohs, one of Australia's premiere rugby teams..."
3. And from this article: "The NRL is one of the premiere rugby organizations in the world..."
   

In addition http://www.coasttocoasttickets.com/rugby/ lists both rugby league and rugby union tickets. --Jeff79 (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is the more physically demanding

Even having a comparison here is dopey. Its a debate for armchair specialists. Anyone that has played either knows that you go as hard as you can until you are absolutely stuffed. Union has different body types due to different combinations or aerobic/anaerobic for each position. An open side flanker would have far more aerobic ability than any league player but likely less anaerobic ability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.154.48 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This article states that "rugby league is the more physically demanding of the two sports" based on the fact that the ball is in play for a higher percentage of time in a rugby league game, and that there are less players. However, I am of the view that in union the constant contest for the ball as a result of rucks (which aren't present in league) as well as scrums and lineouts (neither of which are present in league) would make union more demanding. Both sets of players are equally skilled and both sports are just as enjoyable, but in union the constant rucking is a hgue drain on stamina. Anyone agree? Joel Taylor (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The 10 metre rule is a killer and there is a strong body opinion that this is expecting far too much of amateur players. Very many rugby league players "retire" to rugby union because of the higher stamina requirements and this is one of the weaknesses of the league game, there isn't an equivalent of the kind of "coarse / social rugby" that people can go on playing past their thirties.

At a pro level, people are able to play rugby union for national teams (including the likes of England) at the ripe old age of 36, very few players are able to play Super League (let alone international rugby) much past 30.GordyB (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Truth.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on the 10 metre rule but it depends on the definition of "physically demanding" really. Having to run back 10 metres means you'd have to be aerobically fit, but then there aren't any league players of the kind of build as union forwards who have to deal with so much physicality at the ruck and maul. Also, Do fewer players play super league or international rugby league at a later age because league is a smaller sport, so there's a greater concentration of younger, fitter players coming up through the ranks.

Personally I think they're both physically demanding in their own ways (as we're demonstrating by arguing this point. Could we say that they are both physically demanding in different ways, to a similar level? Joel Taylor (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. See previous comment. Consensus reached on an article's talk page does not overrule reliable, third party sources. See also Wikipedia:No_original_research--Jeff79 (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Cheers Joel Taylor (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the third-party sources used to support the league as a more demanding sport are more opinionated the fact worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.160.10 (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Rugby union forwards have by far the mot physically demanding responsibilites in either code. However Rugby union backs have by far the least. It is not possible to say one code is more demanding than the other as they are demanding in different areas. Union forwards need to be at every breakdown to cleanout, they're in every ruck, scrum and maul. They also cannot leave the field and return again and often play out the first 70 minutes with half time as the only break. League backs all have a similar physicality to the job of a union centre where they often have to hit the defensive line however they do it alot more often in league. League backs have far more physical demands than union backs. But union forwards have the most demanding position in either code. Cheers. GM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.26.104 (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

League is faster (due to the 10 metre rule) and the actual collisions are harder, but, as eluded to, union forwards have to contest the scrums, breakdowns, mauls etc. League's backs have to do a lot more collision work too, than union. I doubt there has been any neutral research or study into this question; its just one persons opinion against another, so I would agree to say it's no original research and remove the comment.

Ymron (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias towards rugby league

This article is so biased against Rugby union and pro rugby league it isn't funny, you can tell that the people behind it are leagueys because they use the old thing of taking contest of the breakdown out making it faster, yet don't focus on how contestng the ball is also very demanding of a player and results in more variable athletes playing rugby union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatgreg (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, everything in he first paragraph implies that the sport is much better for spectators, which is something that can't be substantiated in any way, shape or form. If anything, the stronger international presence in union adds weight to the notion that Union is a better spectator sport. Yes, league is faster and requires more physical fitness (at least aerobically), but the contests are what gives union it's appeal, something that the article completely fails to address. RatzaChewy (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above. Its ridiculous. World super stars like Jonah Lomu and Jonny Wilkinson show that people are more aware of Rugby Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.233.215 (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, any objective article is always going to make rugby league sound better. You'd have to be very biased towards rugby union to make it sound as good. --Timtranslates (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Interception

In the section "Advancing the ball", there is this part: (...) Possession may change in different ways in both games:- When the ball is kicked to the opposing team, this can be done at any time but it is normal to punt on the last tackle in rugby league. Following an unsuccessful kick at goal. When an opposing player intercepts a pass. (...) I think that its impossible to intercept a pass due the offside rule. I don't know if this rule applies to Rugby League too. Please check this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.15.18.231 (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not impossible in either game, it happens all the time.GordyB (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Concidering references and non-objective point of view

Thoose who wants more refs and suggests that the wrighter is not neutral, in this case, I find them to be in lack of knowlidge. Americans perhaps ? Please do not continue to claim refs to thing that are very well known - at least in parts of the world. Just by looking at the tables in a common newspaper shows that more points are scored in league, allthow a goal/try is given one point less. I'm not very familliar with any rugby (I'm danish) - but I've red this good article before. And I've learned from it. And I've discussed League contra Union in England (Bradford and London). Do not over-reference wikipedia. It is enough with that a fact is well known in a country or a part of it. Please. This article is quite up to standard, and do describe both league and union play very well. As neutral that ever is possible. Besides webb-references are no guarantee for truth, but often the opposite. wiki-reader sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.32.40 (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can suggest that the writer is "American" when you say "I'm not very familiar with any rugby (I'm Danish)". The author could of been Danish, eh? This article, as discussed above, is immensely biased toward Rugby League. They describe the rules well but insert their own opinions about the rules which should be left out.

Various problems

I'll nail my colours to the mast straight away. I'm primarily a Union fan. Nevertheless, I think it's clear to all that much off the article is heavily biased in favour of league, or at least written from a league perspective.

- "The laws of rugby league football have been gradually changed to encourage a faster, more spectator-friendly sport."

A good counterpoint to this would be to acknowledge that Union averages 30-50% higher average attendances in their respective leagues in England and Australia, holds 4 of the top 5 international sporting event averages, and about 10 times as many attended their last respective World Cups.

Union does not average higher attendances in England,

So how do you explain the figures here [1]?

I don't need to "explain" anything based on a Wikipedia article. You need a source from outside. The issue clouding the figures is that union calculates attendances differently e.g. league counts only those who attend the game whilst union counts the number of tickets sold. Some season ticket holders will be absent at any game due to illness, family commitments etc and there will be empty seats but the official attendance figure might be the same as the stadium capacity.GordyB (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There are clear links from that article showing where they are sourced from, and these agree with the numbers I quoted above. Therefore I think the onus is on you to provide a source to contradict this.

I can source that union attendance figures are often just announced as the stadium's maximum capacity and don't compare to attendance figures in other sports.GordyB (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

TV figures are much higher for league than union.

TV figure are harder to measure, and there are many variables. Do you have any sources for this?

Australia has only got 4 pro union teams so attendance averages don't mean a lot but TV figures for league are way ahead of union (which wouldn't even be second).GordyB (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I chose England and Australia to show that even in the countries where League is most popular (alright, excluding Papua New Guines and Lebanon), Union attendances are higher. The link above, I think, includes all the major leagues, and the totals for League is about 6m spectators, and Union is 10.75m. That's not even comparing at an International level, where Union is far more popular, or Sevens, where the Union game is going to be in the Olympics.

BARB figures. Union is obviously more popular around the world because it is played in more countries but league is more popular as a TV sport in Australia and England (by a long way).GordyB (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you get the BARB figures?

- "Rather than focussing on contests for possession of the ball, rugby league's rules have become orientated to promoting the contests of player against player and team against team with good passing, angles of running and organised defences the focus".[3]

Regardless of the "player against player and team against team" meaningless truism, the link cited has little to do with the sentiment that the source (Telfer) was trying to convey. A balanced approach would be to take all of what he wrote, or none of it.

- "Rugby league is also simpler and easier for spectators to understand than rugby union.[8] The laws of rugby league are consequently fewer, comprising 21,000 words compared to 35,000 for union.[9][10]"

The first sentence is the consequence of the second, and not the other way round.

- "Thirteen-man rugby league has shown itself to be a faster, more open game of better athletes than the other code. Rugby union is trying to negotiate its own escape from amateurism, with some officials admitting that the game is too slow, the laws too convoluted to attract a larger TV following. – Ian Thomsen, The New York Times, October 28, 1995[12]"

This opinion has no business being so prominently placed in such an article - at best a reference. Union has moved on in so many ways from 1995.

- "The claim that rugby union has a greater scope for the contest of possession is not supported by..."

Yes it is - that's precisely what the stats go on to say. Regardless of whether you perceive 90% as a large number (it's not really), it clearly smaller than that for League.

- "13 out of 14 times the side in possession retained the ball at the breakdown.[13] 9 times out of 10 the side in possession retained the ball at the scrum.[13] 8 times out of 10 the side in possession retained the ball at the line-out.[13]"

The stats are too in-depth, and pulled from one source. With the constant tinkering of the laws, interpretations and tactics, these are liable to change. I'd say that stating that ball retention from breakdowns and set pieces is 80-90% is sufficient.

- "The report also found that while in the 1980s teams in possession lost the ball to their opposition on average once every six breakdowns, by the 2000s possession was won by the defending team on average once every twenty-three breakdowns.[13]"

Which directly contradicts the statistic above from the same source. All this should be removed.

- "In comparison, rugby league's six tackle rule results in a more even division of possession despite fewer opportunities to contest it.[13]"

This has no relation to the above paragraph, and should not be tacked onto the end. The fact that possession tends to be more evenly balanced as a consequence of this rule in noteworthy, but not related to the percentage of ball retention.

- "While in rugby league both possession and field position are important, in rugby union field position takes precedence. In league, possession is usually considered more important than territory, as a player cannot score without the ball."

Badly written. How about "The relative importance of possession over field position is higher in League than in Union"

- "Rugby union is more a game of territory and players often kick possession away to the opposition to move play nearer the opposition goal line and posts."

If we're going to repeat this three times, we should at least state some reasoning - such as the fact that a team is in constant danger of losing possession, whereas in League, this is unlikely until the fifth tackle occurs (at which point they do kick because they will lose possession).

- "This is becoming rarer and rarer as union referees are starting to ape their league counterparts in turning a blind eye to crooked put-ins.[dubious – discuss]"

I think this is not just dubious but unnecessary, and prone to change frequently depending on interpretations.

- "There is a perception that more drop goals are scored in rugby union, but in 2007 the rates were very similar: 0.2 per game in Super 14 and 0.19 per game in the NRL.[14][not specific enough to verify]"

Sounds very specific to me. More to the point, these stats substantiate the argument - not contradict it, as the sentence implies. I think the rest of the stats and analysis are a bit unnecessary.

- "It is a myth that many more penalty goals are scored in union. The 2007 Super 14 season averaged 4.4 penalty goals per game, equivalent figures for the NRL are not available, but an estimate yields less than 1 penalty goal per game.[16] The Guinness Premiership stats for 2010 show an average of 4.99 goals per game.[17]"

So, not a myth then at all, unless you consider ~500% not to be "many more"

- "For instance, props and hookers in rugby union tend to be among the physically strongest players with high levels of scrummaging and mauling skills, but (traditionally) with limited speed and ball-handling skills."

I don't know where to get average stats from, but it would be telling here to state that it is not uncommon for a Union prop forward to make no passes, and occasionally no carries in a game.

- "Argentina does not participate in any annual competition at either club or international level."

Should include a reference to their planned inclusion to the tri-nations.

- "In May 1996, Bath Rugby and Wigan RLFC, who were then England's top union and league sides respectively, made history by playing against each other at both codes of rugby. The first match was at Maine Road, Manchester and was played under league rules. Wigan beat Bath 82-6; then two weeks later the return match was held at Twickenham Stadium under union rules. The result this time: Bath 44, Wigan 19."

I think it should be mentioned (I'm sure the sources are there), that the perception is that Wigan gave a better account of themselves than Bath, scoring some fantastic tried (albeit when the match was dead). A further point to note (perhaps in the players section) is that in the Union game, full scrummaging against the league players was not allowed due to the safety concerns. Moreover, it is relevant that a distinction between the games is that no Union prop would ever be able to play League to a high level. Conversely no high level league player would last as a Union prop.

I also think there should be analysis on cross-code players. To include: --- mainly League to Union in recent years due to professionalism in the latter. --- successes are mainly in the backs (Robinson, Tuqiri, Williams, Ashton) --- surprising successes in forwards (Elsom, Thorn) --- Disasterous debuts in decision making positions, indicating the importance of instinctive understanding of the game (Iestyn Harris & Henry Paul) --- rarely does a Union forward move to or from League --- Union to League examples (e.g. Gareth Thomas)

My main gripe with the article is that it is mainly written from a League perspective (and in some areas a bit wooly). I can wholly understand that ball retention stats may be the be-all and end-all from a League point of view (as there is little distinction between 'good' and 'bad' ball). However, this is only really part of the story from a Union perspective, as quick, clean ball is vital. Therefore the idea that scrums/lineouts/rucks may as well be done away with simply because more often than not, the ball is retained anyway, does not really hold any water.

Also, as I understand it, there are no 'rules' in Union, only 'laws' (an important distinction). I suspect the same is true of League.

Depending on feedback, I will implement some of the above changes, (or maybe I will just forget about it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.55.46 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has some serious issues, I've attempted to resolve some but it needs work Gnevin (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is being aimed for in the Procession. RU clearly has more contests for procession, every ruck,maul,scrum etc. I've attempted to tidy. Why do we care what Tony Collins has to say? If we go down this road every tom,dick and harry with an opinion on sports will be added Gnevin (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It pulled together a few pieces of the article that dealt with something often mentioned when comparing the codes. It makes sense to look at the contest for possession in the wider context of possession.

On possession, I just want us to be careful with phrasing. My view is that rugby union has more types of contest for possession. That is different from opportunities to contest possession or how often the contest leads to a change in possession (as your last edit notes). According to the RFU, "Across the 48 games of RWC 2007 there was an average of 19 scrums, 31 lineouts and 144 rucks and mauls, giving a total of 194 phase transitions or set pieces per match". According to Sean Fagan, (I haven't been able to find a detailed source in my quick search but it suffices for this purpose) there are "over 400 play-the-balls per game" in rugby league. With one-on-one tackles being an option each time a player runs, there is a significant opportunity to contest possession in rugby league.

The edit here that removed "It is stated that" from the beginning of the sentence has changed the meaning from an opinion in the source to stating it as fact.

If, to prevent Tom, Dick and Harry problem, you want to change it from mentioning Tony Collins to something like "it has been argued", I don't object.LunarLander // talk // 21:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks Gnevin (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm an American, so I don't have a dog in this fight, although I have seen a little of both versions on TV. FWIW, I find all versions of football interesting in there own way. However, it occurs to me some here might be missing something: the changes in the game between the RU and RL might well have been intended to increase spectator enjoyment, even if the end result was not Aa well received by some. Sort of reminds of the debate between AL and NL fans over the designated hitter rule in baseball. Wschart (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm another uninvolved Yank, though I watch both union and league occasionally on Fox Soccer Plus (one of the cable channels in the nosebleed section). Since I'm used to the pace of American football, where the ball is actually in play maybe fifteen minutes out of three hours or more, I have to smile at the pace-of-play comments on the rugby codes. Both union and league look lightning fast compared to American football. Anyway, the article does seem to have a pronounced bias towards league, as others have noted. If this article is really intended as a fair-minded comparison of the codes, some pretty extensive rewriting looks in order.

In general, the history of animosity between the codes looks - I can't help it - downright funny to American eyes. What's the point? Rugby should worry about competing with other sports, not with this weird intra-sport competition betweeen two closely related codes. Anybody can see that union and league are very similar versions of the same game. There's an enormous overlap in running, tackling, kicking and passing skills. That's why many players have been able to compete in both codes at the highest level.

Oh well, I've probably gotten fans of both codes angry now. But this article could still use a healthy dose of NPOV. 12.198.205.9 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote in the intro

The quote in the intro violate WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD and should be removed . Gnevin (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are a nice quote that I think should be in the lead if that other one stays There's so much more of a tactical side, more that can happen in a game. It's much better [2] and I can find more I'm sure Gnevin (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you're just trying to be cute or if you actually want a serious reply to this. But the neutrality (and I'm pleased you're already aware of this concept as per the link you provided above) of a current rugby union-signed player and The New York Times regarding the topic of this article are not comparable in the least. Kindly stop reverting and wasting my time (as you already have with the lead of rugby league).--Jeff79 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a quote from a player who has played both codes at a high level albeit his opinion but quote from the nyt is just an opinion also . So if one is in both should be in Gnevin (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How about a section on World cups which the RL world cup is called a disappointment to quote same article ? Gnevin (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality aside, quotes should not be in the lead. Leads are supposed to summarise an article, quotes are pretty much the opposite. AIRcorn (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the NYTimes quote doesn't belong in the lead - move it to an appropriate paragraph further down. Mattlore (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving it down will help but surely we are just going to end up with random quotes from different people who favour one code over the other ? Gnevin (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

True. It is probably best to keep opinions on which is the better game out of this. AIRcorn (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is mind-boggling. Summarising the topic of this article is precisely what the NY Times quote does, that's why it was chosen. An American Newspaper is the definition of a reliable, third-party source, which is also why it was chosen. It couldn't possibly be more relevant, so arguments about WP:Lead go out the window and it absolutely cannot be more neutral. It should go without saying that quotes from anyone involved in rugby or even newspapers from rugby-playing countries are unacceptable. I'm not aware of any rule about quotations not being allowed in the lead, but if consensus insists, it can be shifted down. There are however absolutely no grounds for its removal. This discussion has proved only that some editors don't like it, nothing more.--Jeff79 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And they have provided policy based reasons as to why. RFC it if you want, but so far the consensus here is pretty clear. AIRcorn (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to elaborate on these 'policy-based reasons' just as I have above.--Jeff79 (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of an article, a quote is not even the summary of a source. Quotes bring problems when it comes to NPOV as they only take a small segment of the source and can be used completely out of context. They also give undue weight especially when presented like it was here. There are also particular problems with this quote. In 1995 rugby was just becoming professional so it is out of date, plus it is not the New York times saying this it is the author Ian Thomsen. AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll decline from sharing my opinion, but thanks anyway for sharing yours. The quality of the source, i.e. its neutrality and reputation, make it more valuable than others and precisely what Wikipedia needs more (not less) of. You can see for yourself that the quote used is an overview of precisely the topic of this article, making it perfectly suited to the lead. There is simply nowhere else (1 Names, 2 Pitch, 3 Possession, 4 Advancing the ball, 5 Tackling, 6 Scoring, 7 Other minor differences in the rules, 8 Players, 9 Cross-code games) in this article to put it. I would have been happy to include the quote in the relevant area of the article if it ran chronologically but it doesn't. Besides, the date appears alongside it. Readers should be aware that it's not still 1995.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead is not the place to put stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else. A section could possibly be made describing the relative merits of each sport from a supporters point of view. No idea what to call it (don't see any similar sections at Category:Comparison of sports). Personally I would avoid it as it would be a magnet for POV edits. AIRcorn (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is really no need for me to type all this out again, but since you insist: according to WP:Lead: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Guess what the NY Times quote summarises? Amateurism/professionalism and on-field differences between the game and its players. The lead is the place to put content that deals with the most important aspects regarding an article's topic, I'm sure you'll agree. Any neutral editor will agree the quote is worthwhile and you've been shown repeatedly that you have no cause for removing it. Naturally, it will continue to be re-instated.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay then, lets get someone neutral. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Comparison of rugby league and rugby union. AIRcorn (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please stop edit warring Jeff Gnevin (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving on

I think there is a misunderstanding about reliable sources where it comes to opinion pieces. It doesn't matter where they are published they are only reliable when attributed to whoever is saying it. Take for example the sentence fragment in the artcile while its slower cousin. This is sourced to this. While it does support the text, this is not a reliable source to use as a blanket statement that league is faster than union. There is also a bit of cherry picking, the article says that union is "perhaps the toughest sport", but this is not mentioned. The language used ("cousin") is also too informal for an encyclopaedia. A bit more care needs to be taken with wording as this problem is apparent throughout the article. Also, while I am glad we have finally got the quote out of the lead I still think it would be better worked into the text. It needs to be given historical context. AIRcorn (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in almost all that you say expect for the quote. If we start including quotes from one one then others will be added for the other sport to "even things out" opinion is opinion no matter where it's published Gnevin (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We are still allowed opinion in the article as long as we clearly label it as such. The big problem is deciding whose opinion is worth mentioning. I agree with you that going down this road will make things tricky when it comes to enforcing NPOV. If it was just us then this would be no problem, but that is not the case. Will see what happens with the new quote now added. I fear it will probably turn into even more of a pissing contest. AIRcorn (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently only quotes which show RL in a good light are allowed Gnevin (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Gibson Flying V isn't Aston a 3rd party source? Gnevin (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should just quote this entire article [3] ? Gnevin (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess if we have one then there is no excuse not to have the other. I would rather have neither. AIRcorn (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Ashton quote can be incorporated into the text along the lines of "Chris Ashton, who was paid by rugby union to defect from rugby league said...". Clearly his words do not get the prominence of a quote box for all the same reasons you two attempted to use against the New York Times quote.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Ashton quote has got as much right to be in the quote box as the Thomsen one. Also are you reading the edit summary. Botica, Tuigamamla and Gallagher also returned to play rugby union once they were able (i.e. once it became professional). At least try to come at this from a neutral point of view. AIRcorn (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"At least try to come at this from a neutral point of view."? I'm not sure why you're saying that. I don't need to worry about trying to be neutral as I'm using independent, third-party sources while you're pushing sources that, by definition, simply cannot be less dependent or closer to the topic. Please stop forcing me to type out the obvious and add more text to this utter non-issue of a discussion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You are fighting tooth and nail against consensus to keep a pro-league quote and remove a pro-union quote. That and some of your other slanted edits is why I am saying that you should "At least try to come at this from a neutral point of view." Are you seriously saying that a sports journalist can have their quote in a quote box, but a dual international cannot? There are plenty of sports journalists that say a lot harsher things than Ashton, Gnevin linked an article above. So will a quote from that article meet your independent, third-party source criteria? Your obvious is obviously not as obvious as you obviously think it is, which is why so far no one has agreed with anything you have typed here. AIRcorn (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Love this edit summary revert to more informative and balanced version. You removed information and are only presenting one side! Also this. You do realise that without that second part you are misquoting the source. A semi colon is not a period. Basically the quote you are trying so hard to protect says "despite league being this rugby is this". That is what the nonetheless means. You removed the "rugby is this part" and have therefore changed the whole meaning of the quote to suit your version. AIRcorn (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Currently at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Comparison of rugby league and rugby union. AIRcorn (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As discussed at the dispute noticeboard I am proposing an alternative wording for the History section. The following could be added replacing the quote box and the fifth and six paragraphs. The paragraph about the international competitions favours union as it has a larger interantional reach. The quote has been shortened and is incorporated into unions adoption of professionalism and favours league. Most of the first paragraph has been obtained from other Wikipedia articles and I am still to find references, although I don't think there is anything too controversial in it.

Proposed text

In 1948 the French instigated the formation of the International Rugby League Board as the world governing body for rugby league. France, New Zealand, Britatin and Australia (joining a few months later) were the founding countries. The International Rugby Football Board (IRFB), formed prior to the schsim in 1886, remained the international governing body for rugby union, although it originally only consisted of England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa joined the IRFB in 1948, France in 1978 and Argentina, Canada, Italy and Japan in 1991. The oldest international rugby union competition is the Six Nations Championship, starting in 1883 with games played between England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. France joined in 1910 and Italy in 2000. In 1996 the Southern Hemisphere teams of South Africa, Australia and New Zealand started there own annual international competition, with Argentina due to join in 2012. The major annual international competition in rugby league is the four nations, first played in 1999. It originally involved Britain, Australia and New Zealand before expanding to include another invited nation in 2009. Rugby league was the first to introduce a World Cup in 1954 and it has been held intermittently since then, in a variety of formats. Rugby unions first World Cup was held in 1987 and it is contested every four years.

On 26 August 1995 the International Rugby Board declared rugby union an "open" game and thus removed all restrictions on payments or benefits to those connected with the game. At the time Ian Thomsen commented in the New York Times that league "was a faster, more open game of better athletes than the other code rugby union." With both sports becoming professional matches between union and league teams have been played. In May 1996, Bath Rugby and Wigan RLFC, who were then England's top union and league sides respectively, made history by playing against each other at both codes of rugby. Wigan won 82-6 in the first match, played under league rules, and lost the second 44-19 under union rules. Since then other games have been played between union and league teams using the laws of one of the codes, or in some cases using a different set of laws each half. The inherent similarities between rugby league and rugby union has at times led to the possibility of a merger being mooted and experimental hybrid games have been played that use a mix of the two sport's rules.

Looks like a good first draft. Minor notes; the RLIF was known as the International Rugby League Board at the time of its foundation. Also I'd link to the RLWC and RWC. Mattlore (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes made. AIRcorn (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am changing:

At the time Ian Thomsen commented in the New York Times that league "was a faster, more open game of better athletes than the other code rugby union."

which is a poorly formatted and unreferenced misquote, to:

According to The New York Times, "Thirteen-man rugby league has shown itself to be a faster, more open game of better athletes than the other code. Rugby union is trying to negotiate its own escape from amateurism, with some officials admitting that the game is too slow, the laws too convoluted to attract a larger TV following".

Any objections?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've changed the tense to make it sound like its a current quote. Perhaps something like Before this move Ian Thompson had commented in the New York Times that "thirteen-man rugby league has shown itself to be a faster, more open game of better athletes than the other code...with some [rugby union] officials admitting that the game is too slow, the laws too convoluted to attract a larger TV following." Mattlore (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought being embedded in the paragraph that deals with the 1995 change to professionalism took care of that, but I'm happy with your suggestion. Although, I do wonder why Ian Thompson needs to be mentioned. If he were wikilinked it would be a redlink, so I don't get why adding his name in black is needed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it is not the New York Times opinion, it is Ian Thompson's opinon. Don't know why we need to say league is faster and then that union is slow and the TV following comment is not really comparing anything unless we use the league television following. Anyway the consensus at WP:DRN was to include short inline quotes. What is gained by expanding the current given? AIRcorn (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it imparts nothing to the reader. It's the same as saying 'some person' wrote it. Readers know Newspaper articles are written by people. So shall we leave it out? The discussion at DRN never touched on cutting the quote in half. The passage of text the quote appears in deals with union's switch to professionalism so removing the part that actually mentions amateurism makes no sense. I think it's you who needs to explain why you want it cut out.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is an opinion so it needs to be attributed it to someone, we can't just leave Thomsen out. The only part of the quote that is comparing the two sports is the first sentence. The rest is just talking about rugby union and not making any comparisons to rugby league. AIRcorn (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've already explained why we can just leave Thomsen out, so I think what's needed now is a case to be put forth for why we can't. Of all the different editors who've commented on this quote on all the different discussion pages in the past weeks, none has mentioned changing it, let alone removing half of it. The reason it belongs in the part of the History section that covers union's change to professionalism is because the quote deals with that very topic, not because it mentions speed/athleticism.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone has to say or write a quote. Therefore we need to say who that person is. I have never said it should be moved to another section of the History. AIRcorn (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Geographic coverage of each type

Is there an easy way to summarise where each form or rugby is played around the world. Is it the case that Rugby xxx is far more common that Rugby yyy in New Zealand or that Rugby xxx dominates in the south of England etc. If so then it would be helpful to provide a brief summary by country. PeterEastern (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You could use registered player numbers. The IRB publishes some for union, not sure where the league ones are. I would use seniors, juniors sometimes don't have a choice. AIRcorn (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Attributing opinons

Just seeking clarification about why rugby union's borrowing from rugby league is being singled out as an "opinion" that needs to be attributed but not the rest of the sources in the article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it is an opinion of the author and not a fact. What other sources are you talking about. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But why? Because it's in the book's preface as opposed to one of the chapters?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't help. However, just because something is written in a book does not necessarily mean it is not someones opinion. In these cases it is better to attribute them to the author and not say them with Wikipedias voice. AIRcorn (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That's my point. More than one book is used as a source in this article (and countless others).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a difference between an opinion and a fact. Saying union turned profesional in 1995 is not an opiniona fact and does not need to be attributed. Saying that union has increasingly borrowed techniques and tactics from league is opinion and should be. AIRcorn (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So is it the use of adverbs and adjectives that makes it an opinion? Only sentences from books which include numbers don't need to be attributed? And what if the same book were to be referenced more than once in different parts of the article? Should it be repeatedly preceded with who said it and in which publication?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

An opinion is when someone makes takes a view or makes a judgement. This can be based on facts or just that persons beleifs. It doesn't matter where it comes from (book, newspaper, website, press release or other publication), if it gives an opinion it should be attributed. AIRcorn (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to pinpoint how you define the statement in question as an "opinion". If you can't, then I remain unconvinced that attributing it is neccessary.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

For starters, like you have mentioned, it is in the preface (will add that into the article now). A preface is an introduction to the book and is usually written in a lot less formal style. The sentence sourced says "Amaturism, which the RFU once claimed was the very reason for the sports existence, has been abandoned, the game is now an unashamedly commercial specticle at the mercy of television schedules, and its tactics and techniques are increasinly borrowed from rugby league." Collins is making a judgemnt on rugby union. I am not sure how it can be read as anything but an opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You've a clear case of WP:OWN of this article and Rugby league can you please work with your fellow editors instead of pushing your own agenda Gnevin (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so now what's wrong with A Social History of English Rugby Union?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Same author same opinion Gnevin (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. You haven't explained why you keep removing A Social History of English Rugby Union in favour of the other book's preface.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You realise the other reference is also an opinion. It is even labeled as such. Why don't you go to a noticeboard or initiate a rfc to find consensus if you can't find it here. If you want to attribute it to Collin's other book then do so, I don't care who it is attributed to, as long as it is attributed. At the moment I do not think you possess the ability to edit this article impartially. AIRcorn (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't go to a noticeboard or initiate an RFC because this is a simple enough matter to be settled here. My edit history and comments are there for all to see (as are yours). I suggest you renew your efforts to restrict your comments to the article's content instead of individual editors. Do you have a problem with the wording now?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: Did you intend to double up on Rugby's Great Split as a reference like that, or was this an accident? I also need help understanding why you deleted this reference, dismissing it as "opinion piece from random journalist". It was important to keep that as it shows that the same observation as Collins' has been published by other reliable sources as well, which saves us from having to attribute it solely to him. Not that it's merely an opinion anyway, as is explained in the other reference, A Social History of English Rugby Union.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant to add both Collins sources so we did not have to include the book in the attribution. I searched for Bret Harris and could find no information on him. Why is his opinion relevant? Especially when we already have Collins. AIRcorn (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

His observations are relevant because a) they agree with Collins' and b) they've been published by The Australian. Furthermore, their observations appear to agree with those of journalists for the The New Zealand Herald[4] and Reuters[5]. I think we only need to attribute views held solely by Collins to him.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

None of those really support your case. One is a joke article and the other talks about things which could be adopted. You have a talent for finding news stories, maybe you could use that to help reference the etymology section. I have had no luck. AIRcorn (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am far more concerned with this article representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. So the Etymology section must take a distant back seat for now. You say "None of those really support your case". It's difficult to know what you mean here. My case is that Collins' observation matches the observations of a number of other sources (so attributing it solely to him is inaccurate). If, as you say, writers' names must always be mentioned, we should have something like: "British rugby historian Tony Collins, The Australian journalist Bret Harris, and The New Zealand Herald journalist Steve Deane have all written that since turning professional in the mid 1990s, rugby union has increasingly borrowed techniques and tactics from rugby league." That's just silly isn't it? That's the reason footnotes were invented. This discussion should have ended when A Social History of English Rugby Union was added as a reference, in which Collins' observation is presented through facts in the book's body (not as an opinion in the preface).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I said somewhere else that just because more than one person shares an opinion doesn't turn it into a fact. We both disagree and I don't see either of us changing the others mind. Why don't you look for a third opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments please

I added two sentences today to the History section. Remember that this article is called -- "'Comparison of rugby league and rugby union".

The first sentence said "Comparing the international development of both codes, union has become the norm for events not promoted by the codes' governing bodies".

The second sentence, running on from the first and justifying it, said "Rugby union has been a medal sport at four Olympic games, in Paris (1900), London (1908), Antwerp (1920) and Paris (1924), and will return to the Olympics in 2016 and 2020 in the sevens form. Rugby union sevens is a core event at both the British Commonwealth Games and the Asian Games."

Aircorn removed the first sentence, with the edit summary "remove needless POV sentence". Is it consensus that it is POV when comparing the international development of the two codes in an article about the comparisons of the two codes? Moriori (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed it as no comparison is made. The sentence is completely redundant as only rugby union is mentioned.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is an effort to work in the international spread of union as compared to league, see the draft paragraphs (under show) above. The olympics, commenwealth and asian games could be worked in there quite easily (maybe split out into another paragraph). Feel free to edit it if you wish. However, I do think your first sentence is a bit ORish. I feel that just presenting the facts is the better option in most cases and then let the readers decide whether it is the norm or not. AIRcorn (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Etymology

While there is a bit of activity here maybe we can look into tidying this section up. I have been looking for references, and while I can find mentions or football, footy, rugby etc for almost either sport in any area I have yet to find a reference that justifies across the UK, rugby union is usually referred to simply as 'rugby' or the word 'rugby' could refer to either sport but usually means 'rugby league and so on. Has anyone come across a reference that specifically discusses the various names used in different geographic areas? AIRcorn (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Duplication of content

There is some disagreement over whether this sentence should appear twice in the article verbatim: The inherent similarities between rugby league and rugby union has at times led to the possibility of a merger being mooted and experimental hybrid games have been played that use a mix of the two sports' rules. Aircorn wants it to appear once in the lead section without references and a second time in the History section with references. I want it to appear once in the lead section (with references of course). This seems to better suit WP:LEAD as it is a precursor to the detailing of specific cross-code games later in the article. Furthermore, I would have the History section flow chronologically, and this sentence doesn't fit in at any particular point in time.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything in the lead should be covered in the body of the article. I personally think the history section flows quite well at the moment and would rather keep it grouped by theme more than chronology. AIRcorn (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No one disputes that "Everything in the lead should be covered in the body of the article". The question here is whether we should have the same identical sentence appear twice verbatim in two different sections of the article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Then change the lead one. AIRcorn (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an alternative wording to suggest. I do have an alternative to it appearing twice though, and that is appearing once.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Then it can't be in the lead as "everything in the lead should be covered in the body of the article". AIRcorn (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Two questions for you, Aircorn: 1) How many times do you want this sentence to appear in the article, and 2) which section/s do you want it to appear in?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

At the moment my preference is for it to be mentioned once in the history section. I don't see any other section in the body where it will fit, but there may be a case for moving it. If you want it mentioned in the lead then go for it, I am not bothered either way. AIRcorn (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant that if you wanted to mention it in the lead as well as the body then I am not bothered. I did not mean I am not bothered if you move it to just the lead. Where else is that information to be presented? AIRcorn (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What 'information' specifically are you referring to?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"The inherent similarities between rugby league and rugby union has at times led to the possibility of a merger being mooted and experimental hybrid games have been played that use a mix of the two sports' rules." This only appears in the lead. It should also appear somewhere else (not necessarily in that form, but the article should say something about hybrid or merged games). AIRcorn (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wigan vs Bath is dealt with in the history section. Doesn't that qualify?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I created a specific section for it ("cross-code games"). What do you think? It could probably use a better heading. AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

History section

There is some disagreement over the way the History section of this article is laid out. My preference is for it to simply flow chronologically, a method commonly employed for history sections across Wikipedia (that may be written into a guideline somewhere, I'm not sure). Aircorn appears to prefer a situation in which editors choose the order in which different historical 'themes' are detailed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are you creating a lot of short paragraphs? AIRcorn (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying my best to make things appear in chronological order. If that means some small paragraphs rather than material dealing with different decades scattered at random across the history section, I beleive that is the lesser of the two evils. Besides, the article is clearly undergoing some major expansion. Those paragraphs won't necessarily remain that short.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. In that case we may want to think about trimming or moving information out of the history section at some point so it doesn't overwhelm the article. I can specifically think of the cross-code players being moved to the players section and the rule changes to a newly created rules section. AIRcorn (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've also been concerned for some time about the replication of content from History of rugby league, History of rugby union and Rugby football. Although that's understandable around 1895, it is not for the remainder of the section. We should try to restrict its content to direct comparisons and discourse regarding both codes rather than just one as much as possible. And yes, 'Players' as a subsection of 'Gameplay' seems out of place. Should be its own section.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I had a go at trimming the info and moving paragraphs around. AIRcorn (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Shoulder charge

I was a little surprised to find that the shoulder charge is still referenced in the article as being part of Rugby League since it has been banned internationally since February this year (2013). Well, I suppose someone has to make the change, so I am removing the references in the article.

See: http://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/rules/official_laws and http://www.therfl.co.uk/news/article/27099/rfl-laws-committee-outlaws-shoulder

New Zealand and Australia had already banned the shoulder charge. Ecadre (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Similarites

I'd like to read more about the similarities between the two "distinctly different" sports. The only other "football" sports I know are American football and soccer. I really would like to know the basics of rugby (or, if necessary, rugby league and rugby union), so I can contrast them in my mind with the sports I've played (and seen played) in America. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the perfect article to start with if you've no idea what either is like. Rugby football would be better for that, or the article on either sport. If someone were to write comparison of rugby and American football and comparison of rugby and association football, they would, to a very crude first approximation ultra-summary say "no forward passes and stopping play after each phase, and scrums (and lineouts) instead of scrimmages" and "ball is handled and carried, with more than one way to score", respectively. But I wouldn't hold my breath for either, if I were you. Alternatively. think of football as grandpappy, NFL as the grandson, and rugby is the "missing transitional form". 84.203.32.136 (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of American football and rugby union and Comparison of American football and rugby league do exist.GordyB (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Added to which soccer is not an ancestor of rugby. It's more like an elder brother that left the family early and did something that rest of the family did not approve of than a father. Point taken about similarities, maybe we need to summarise "basic rugby" a llittle better.GordyB (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, what do you know. Serves me right for trying to engage in trying to engage in reduction to the absurd, and finding myself outflanked on the absurder side. The idea of having separate articles for each of the rugby codes wouldn't even have occurred to be, though perhaps that's influenced by the idea that RL is 'convergently evolving' in a somewhat NFLish direction, after the fact. I'm tempted to suggest that comparison of American football and rugby be created as a dab page! (Should have learned my lesson the first time. Redirect for the sake of symmetry, then?)

Yes, obviously football's not itself been entirely static since rugby "left the fold". This is a bit like the old humans are apes/humans evolved from apes semantic niggle, depending on whether one wishes to draw a distinction between "modern/stem apes" and "all Hominidae, ancestral and extant". Nonetheless, I think it's accurate and fair to say that of the rugby/football clade, football is the more "basal" (and of the rugby/NFL clade, rugby is). 84.203.32.136 (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No, soccer is not more basal. This confusion occurs because of the Webb Ellis myth - that picking up the ball and running with it was "cheating". In fact handling the ball has always been permitted in types of football. Look for videos of "folk football" on youtube to see what I mean. Soccer is exceptional for being predominantly (but not exclusively) a kicking code.

The American football compared to rugby league / union articles happened because I came across an "American football compared to rugby" article and tried to edit it to allow for league vs union differences. When that became too complex and confusing I split it into two separate articles.GordyB (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this has much to do with Webb Ellis. If one goes back to older references to "playing ball" and "ball games", then certainly some of them involve some kind of handling -- though not necessarily "running forward holding the ball", much less "throwing the ball forward". But that's not necessarily to say that football is typified by games which are predominantly based around handling. (Indeed, some of these references not merely don't call such games "football", but refer to "handball", and so forth.) But I take the point that the former variety does mean that it's problematic to speak of a prototypical "basal" form as such.

In any case, I think it's fairly clear that there's little cause to add such comparisons to this article, as they're better done (and to at least some degree already have been done) in other places. 84.203.44.176 (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Comparison of rugby league and rugby union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5q61bxH6m?url=http://www.rfu.com/AboutTheRFU/History.aspx to http://www.rfu.com/AboutTheRFU/History.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/28/sports/28iht-rugby.t.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theroar.com.au/2007/06/18/black-and-white-and-grey/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rugbyleagueoralhistory.co.uk/subjects/view/rule-changes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829103027/http://arlra.org.au/pdf-files/International_Laws_2007.pdf to http://www.arlra.org.au/pdf-files/International_Laws_2007.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sport.stv.tv/rugby/175081-its-le-crunch-for-magners-league/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/4773076/Talking-Rugby-No-code-like-the-old-code.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rugbyreloaded.blogspot.com/2010/05/mythbusters-contest-for-possession.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413022851/http://www.rfu.com/twickenhamstadium/worldrugbymuseum/rugbyhistory/amateurera to http://www.rfu.com/TwickenhamStadium/WorldRugbyMuseum/RugbyHistory/AmateurEra

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Create a table

The article is full of long paragraphs. It would be handy to have a two-column table, with items such as:

Number of players Size of scrum Points for a try Points for a conversion Points for a penalty Points for a drop goal Restart method after touchdown in own in-goal area Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtranslates (talk • contribs) 09:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to help make a table. I'd even like to add a column for American football -- which, as a born Yank, I simply call "football". The three games share the idea of a field goal (over the bar, between the posts) and a touchdown; all three involve tackling. I bet a lot of American readers would like to know how close football is to rugby. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of rugby league and rugby union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091024111441/http://www.rugby.com.au/about_the_aru/history_of_the_aru/history_of_the_aru%2C183.html to http://www.rugby.com.au/about_the_aru/history_of_the_aru/history_of_the_aru%2C183.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Manu Samoa.💖😭❤️💝

English language And Samoa language 🖕🖕💋🤪 203.99.159.226 (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Ball?

The section on the ball says rugby balls "do not have ties for grabbing" unlike American football. I didn't realise American footballs had ties either, there's nothing about it on Ball (gridiron football). Is somebody thinking about flag football? John Womble (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)