Rugby Union is the original

[DonBilly]

Originally posted by Rassie@Apr 22 2005, 09:26 PM
For your info, Handball initially was a game played outdoor in 11 players.

The common thing is the ball passing through the lines!

I know that but I was mentioning the current version of the game. When we talk of Rugby Union we have the XV version in mind not the XX played in the XIXth century.

 

[c_arkell]

Originally posted by sanzar@Apr 22 2005, 01:16 AM
It's fine if you don't like it, just don't go calling it a sissy game again, as it is definately not a game for the soft! All the League to union converts over here have said that Rugby League is physically more difficult than rugby union... there are no breaks for line outs, scrums or extended waiting periods in rucks with league, it's all about the plays with the ball, rather than for the ball.

i agree that league is not for the soft but i believe parts of union are more demanding. The fact that when your team is in posesion you still have to work to keep the ball. Getting up from the bottom of a ruck and sprinting to another and then another is harder than when your team has the ball in league. You can have a break behind the play if you need one in league.

Defence is definately harder in league because of the speed of the play the balls and having to retreat 10m every tackle is definatley hard work.

 

[Canadian_Rugger]

both games are fun and enjoyable too watch. I ate up the Tri Nations between GB, Aus, and NZ last season and I will do the same for Union. I play Union but like league all the same and League is a better game if you just want to go f*** around with some buddies out in the field who don't play rugby because they don't have to know how to ruck, maul, scrummage, lineout etc....

 

[drico]

Originally posted by sanzar@Apr 22 2005, 10:45 AM
Lastly, have you ever actually watched a game of rugby league?

Yeah i have, in fact I've watched many, and they never cease to bore me to death

 

[drico]

Originally posted by sanzar@Apr 22 2005, 10:48 AM
This is a good point actually, as Rugby was actually originally derived from soccer! So therefore by drico's standard Rugby is odd and boring compared to soccer lol.

I can't believe you said that- me prefer soccer to rugby? Yeah right- I'd rather watch paint dry than watch a boring old premiership game of football

p.s. rugby union didn't come from soccer- it just happened to be that william webb ellis got sick of football- and picked it up, and started to play rugby with it-which is an entirely different game. Unlike league which copied rugby union changing afew minor laws

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by drico+Apr 26 2005, 07:40 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (drico @ Apr 26 2005, 07:40 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-sanzar

@Apr 22 2005, 10:48 AM
This is a good point actually, as Rugby was actually originally derived from soccer! So therefore by drico's standard Rugby is odd and boring compared to soccer lol.

I can't believe you said that- me prefer soccer to rugby? Yeah right- I'd rather watch paint dry than watch a boring old premiership game of football

p.s. rugby union didn't come from soccer- it just happened to be that william webb ellis got sick of football- and picked it up, and started to play rugby with it-which is an entirely different game. Unlike league which copied rugby union changing afew minor laws [/b]

actually thats a myth... Web Ellis didn't pick up a soccer ball during a game of soccer. Rugby was developed at Rugby school in England by altering the rules of soccer to create a more physical game... Besides as we have poited out MANY MANT MANY times, rugby league came as a result of pompus upper class toffs in England who couldn't handle their sport being dominated by working class teams...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Yeah i have, in fact I've watched many, and they never cease to bore me to death [/b]

Why would you watch it if you don't enjoy it?

 

[DonBilly]

drico, RL didn't copy RU the same rules and Rugby were originaly played by the teams afiliated to the RFU and those afilaited to the NRU (Northern Rugby Union) after the split. These later after some years evolved on a different track diverging from the RU.

Otherwise you are right the common origin with football is a myth rather than reality there existed at the time of Webb Ellis several games and some of them were roughly based on the same principles as Rugby.

In France there was a game called Barette where they already used an oval ball whereas Webb Ellis used a round ball.

 

[wigan_rlfc]

Originally posted by drico+Apr 25 2005, 08:40 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (drico @ Apr 25 2005, 08:40 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-sanzar

@Apr 22 2005, 10:48 AM
This is a good point actually, as Rugby was actually originally derived from soccer! So therefore by drico's standard Rugby is odd and boring compared to soccer lol.

I can't believe you said that- me prefer soccer to rugby? Yeah right- I'd rather watch paint dry than watch a boring old premiership game of football

p.s. rugby union didn't come from soccer- it just happened to be that william webb ellis got sick of football- and picked it up, and started to play rugby with it-which is an entirely different game. Unlike league which copied rugby union changing afew minor laws [/b]

http://www.rl1895.com/england-rugby.htm

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Webb Ellis Is A Lie!

by Sean Fagan

The origins of rugby league in Great Britain go back long before the creation in 1895 of the Northern Union. To understand the history of the game, requires an appreciation of the shared "rugby" history before the split and the factors which brought about the creation of the two rugby codes.

In 1800's formalities were introduced to football rules in the seven major public schools of England. Six of the seven schools were largely playing the same game (including Eton, Harrow and Winchester) - while the seventh, Rugby School (founded in 1567) at Warwickshire, was playing a markedly different version of football.

The other schools moved ahead refining their rules and eventually their game became known as "association football" - soccer. How the Rugby School's game developed differently is lost in history and the true story is unlikely to ever be known. The Rugby Football Union's (RFU) much revered tale of how in 1823 the young Rugby School student, William Webb Ellis, "in a fine disregard for the rules" picked up the ball and ran with it in a defining moment in sports history is now accepted by sports historians as being fanciful and a gross distortion of what is known.

There is no doubt that Ellis was a student at Rugby School from 1816 to 1825, but he was never mentioned by anyone as having done the actual deed ascribed to him. The first reference to Ellis appeared in a Rugby School magazine in 1875 (four years after Ellis' death) by an Old Rugbeian, M. Bloxham, who was endeavouring to refute claims that rugby was an ancient game.

Bloxham's story has always been in doubt because of the time that had passed since Ellis supposedly ran with the ball. Bloxham himself wasn't there and no living person could corroborate his version of events. In addition, examination of existing records and documented recollections does not show that the Rugby game dramatically changed after one event (i.e. Ellis or anyone else deciding to run with the ball).

Handling the ball was permitted in football in the early 1800's when players were allowed to take a mark and then a free kick, long before Ellis arrived at Rugby. In fact, most of the public schools allowed forms of handling the ball right up until the formation of the Football Association in the 1860's. The Association even considered whether to allow its continuation, before eventually deciding to outlaw it. The reverse picture that the RFU has painted that the rugby game was born from soccer the moment Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it is clearly, even with very little examination, false.

What is known is that at Rugby School by the 1830's running with the ball was in common use, the goal posts had been extended to 18 feet high (with a cross-bar at 10 feet above the ground) and there were forms of scrummaging and line-outs. The inclusion of the cross-bar was accompanied by a rule that a goal could only be scored by the ball passing over the bar from a place kick or drop kick. Apparently this was done to make scoring easier from further out and also to avoid the horde of defenders standing in the goal mouth.

Players who were able to "touch-down" the ball behind the opponents goal line were awarded a "try-at-goal" - the player would make a mark on the goal line and then walk back onto the field of play to a point where a place kick at the goal was possible (a conversion). There was also an "off-your-side" rule used to keep the teams apart and passing the ball forward was not allowed. The rules were first seriously agreed upon and documented when former Rugby students and clubs wanted to commence formal competitions outside of the Rugby School in 1862. Many of the clubs that formed around this period would later become rugby league clubs.

From 1875 when games finished without any goals being scored, the team which had the most "tries-at-goal" was awarded the win. From 1886 three "tries" equalled one goal in points, before the balance finally moved to giving more value to the scoring of tries. By 1893 the scoring was much closer to what we know today - a try was worth three points, a converted try five points, three for a penalty goal and four for a field goal. However, the rugby game was still very brutal and raw with 71 deaths recorded in English rugby from 1890 to 1893 alone.[/b]

 

[drico]

Originally posted by wigan_rlfc+Apr 26 2005, 08:21 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wigan_rlfc @ Apr 26 2005, 08:21 PM)</div>

Originally posted by drico@Apr 25 2005, 08:40 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-sanzar

@Apr 22 2005, 10:48 AM
This is a good point actually, as Rugby was actually originally derived from soccer! So therefore by drico's standard Rugby is odd and boring compared to soccer lol.

I can't believe you said that- me prefer soccer to rugby? Yeah right- I'd rather watch paint dry than watch a boring old premiership game of football

p.s. rugby union didn't come from soccer- it just happened to be that william webb ellis got sick of football- and picked it up, and started to play rugby with it-which is an entirely different game. Unlike league which copied rugby union changing afew minor laws

http://www.rl1895.com/england-rugby.htm

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Webb Ellis Is A Lie!

by Sean Fagan

The origins of rugby league in Great Britain go back long before the creation in 1895 of the Northern Union. To understand the history of the game, requires an appreciation of the shared "rugby" history before the split and the factors which brought about the creation of the two rugby codes.

In 1800's formalities were introduced to football rules in the seven major public schools of England. Six of the seven schools were largely playing the same game (including Eton, Harrow and Winchester) - while the seventh, Rugby School (founded in 1567) at Warwickshire, was playing a markedly different version of football.

The other schools moved ahead refining their rules and eventually their game became known as "association football" - soccer. How the Rugby School's game developed differently is lost in history and the true story is unlikely to ever be known. The Rugby Football Union's (RFU) much revered tale of how in 1823 the young Rugby School student, William Webb Ellis, "in a fine disregard for the rules" picked up the ball and ran with it in a defining moment in sports history is now accepted by sports historians as being fanciful and a gross distortion of what is known.

There is no doubt that Ellis was a student at Rugby School from 1816 to 1825, but he was never mentioned by anyone as having done the actual deed ascribed to him. The first reference to Ellis appeared in a Rugby School magazine in 1875 (four years after Ellis' death) by an Old Rugbeian, M. Bloxham, who was endeavouring to refute claims that rugby was an ancient game.

Bloxham's story has always been in doubt because of the time that had passed since Ellis supposedly ran with the ball. Bloxham himself wasn't there and no living person could corroborate his version of events. In addition, examination of existing records and documented recollections does not show that the Rugby game dramatically changed after one event (i.e. Ellis or anyone else deciding to run with the ball).

Handling the ball was permitted in football in the early 1800's when players were allowed to take a mark and then a free kick, long before Ellis arrived at Rugby. In fact, most of the public schools allowed forms of handling the ball right up until the formation of the Football Association in the 1860's. The Association even considered whether to allow its continuation, before eventually deciding to outlaw it. The reverse picture that the RFU has painted that the rugby game was born from soccer the moment Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it is clearly, even with very little examination, false.

What is known is that at Rugby School by the 1830's running with the ball was in common use, the goal posts had been extended to 18 feet high (with a cross-bar at 10 feet above the ground) and there were forms of scrummaging and line-outs. The inclusion of the cross-bar was accompanied by a rule that a goal could only be scored by the ball passing over the bar from a place kick or drop kick. Apparently this was done to make scoring easier from further out and also to avoid the horde of defenders standing in the goal mouth.

Players who were able to "touch-down" the ball behind the opponents goal line were awarded a "try-at-goal" - the player would make a mark on the goal line and then walk back onto the field of play to a point where a place kick at the goal was possible (a conversion). There was also an "off-your-side" rule used to keep the teams apart and passing the ball forward was not allowed. The rules were first seriously agreed upon and documented when former Rugby students and clubs wanted to commence formal competitions outside of the Rugby School in 1862. Many of the clubs that formed around this period would later become rugby league clubs.

From 1875 when games finished without any goals being scored, the team which had the most "tries-at-goal" was awarded the win. From 1886 three "tries" equalled one goal in points, before the balance finally moved to giving more value to the scoring of tries. By 1893 the scoring was much closer to what we know today - a try was worth three points, a converted try five points, three for a penalty goal and four for a field goal. However, the rugby game was still very brutal and raw with 71 deaths recorded in English rugby from 1890 to 1893 alone.[/b]

[/b]

WHAT ALOAD OF CRAP, SEAN FAGAN CAN STICK THAT UP HIS ****

 

[sanzar]

Do you have any counter evidence?

 

[drico]

Originally posted by sanzar@Apr 30 2005, 11:28 AM

Do you have any counter evidence?

Yeah- wigan_rlfc doesn't know what hes on about

 

[wigan_rlfc]

Originally posted by drico+Apr 30 2005, 12:31 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (drico @ Apr 30 2005, 12:31 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-sanzar

@Apr 30 2005, 11:28 AM

 

 

  Do you have any counter evidence?

Yeah- wigan_rlfc doesn't know what hes on about [/b]

Oh and you do?

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Originally posted by drico+Apr 30 2005, 12:31 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (drico @ Apr 30 2005, 12:31 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-sanzar

@Apr 30 2005, 11:28 AM

 

 

  Do you have any counter evidence?

Yeah- wigan_rlfc doesn't know what hes on about [/b]

That's not counter evidence you prat!

The history of rugby is very blurred, and it does seem hard to believe that it all came about due to one moment of sublime cheating. However, I doubt we'll ever know it's exact roots, and just how much William Webb-Ellis ever really did have to do with it.





Do we have to have drico fighting the corner for Union? We stand no chance..........

 

[drico]

Originally posted by SaintsFan_Webby+May 1 2005, 06:56 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SaintsFan_Webby @ May 1 2005, 06:56 AM)</div>

Originally posted by drico@Apr 30 2005, 12:31 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-sanzar

@Apr 30 2005, 11:28 AM

 

 

  Do you have any counter evidence?

Yeah- wigan_rlfc doesn't know what hes on about

That's not counter evidence you prat!

The history of rugby is very blurred, and it does seem hard to believe that it all came about due to one moment of sublime cheating. However, I doubt we'll ever know it's exact roots, and just how much William Webb-Ellis ever really did have to do with it.





Do we have to have drico fighting the corner for Union? We stand no chance..........

[/b]

i know its not counter evidence, its just that you can't trust any of those kinds of stories because most of them are entire bullshit, and people just make them up. Can you think of anyone better to fly the flag for Rugby Union?

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Originally posted by drico@May 7 2005, 05:08 PM
Can you think of anyone better to fly the flag for Rugby Union?

Pretty much anyone other than you.

 

[drico]

Originally posted by SaintsFan_Webby+May 8 2005, 04:20 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SaintsFan_Webby @ May 8 2005, 04:20 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-drico

@May 7 2005, 05:08 PM
Can you think of anyone better to fly the flag for Rugby Union?

Pretty much anyone other than you. [/b]

Can you stop insulting me? As you've probably guesed I really don't appreciate it

 

[wigan_rlfc]

Originally posted by SaintsFan_Webby+May 7 2005, 05:20 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SaintsFan_Webby @ May 7 2005, 05:20 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-drico

@May 7 2005, 05:08 PM
Can you think of anyone better to fly the flag for Rugby Union?

Pretty much anyone other than you. [/b]

Wlliam Webb Ellis starting the game of RUgby after 'fine disregard of the rules' of soccer is highly unlikely.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by drico+May 8 2005, 05:54 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (drico @ May 8 2005, 05:54 AM)</div>

Originally posted by SaintsFan_Webby@May 8 2005, 04:20 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-drico

@May 7 2005, 05:08 PM
Can you think of anyone better to fly the flag for Rugby Union?

Pretty much anyone other than you.

Can you stop insulting me? As you've probably guesed I really don't appreciate it [/b]

Well if you make a stupid and insulting topic then you should accept that you will in turn be insulted. Wouldn't you say?

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by drico+May 8 2005, 04:08 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (drico @ May 8 2005, 04:08 AM)</div>

Originally posted by SaintsFan_Webby@May 1 2005, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by drico@Apr 30 2005, 12:31 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-sanzar

@Apr 30 2005, 11:28 AM

 

 

  Do you have any counter evidence?

Yeah- wigan_rlfc doesn't know what hes on about

That's not counter evidence you prat!

The history of rugby is very blurred, and it does seem hard to believe that it all came about due to one moment of sublime cheating. However, I doubt we'll ever know it's exact roots, and just how much William Webb-Ellis ever really did have to do with it.





Do we have to have drico fighting the corner for Union? We stand no chance..........

i know its not counter evidence, its just that you can't trust any of those kinds of stories because most of them are entire bullshit, and people just make them up. Can you think of anyone better to fly the flag for Rugby Union? [/b]

That is pretty weak mate... I'm sorry but your basically saying "it's bullshit because I don't like the holes it puts in my argument," isn't it?

 

[drico]

Originally posted by sanzar+May 8 2005, 09:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sanzar @ May 8 2005, 09:22 PM)</div>

Originally posted by drico@May 8 2005, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by SaintsFan_Webby@May 8 2005, 04:20 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-drico

@May 7 2005, 05:08 PM
Can you think of anyone better to fly the flag for Rugby Union?

Pretty much anyone other than you.

Can you stop insulting me? As you've probably guesed I really don't appreciate it

Well if you make a stupid and insulting topic then you should accept that you will in turn be insulted. Wouldn't you say? [/b]

How is this a stupid topic? the name of the forum is clearly the great debate where you debate the differences between Union and League and argue about which you think is better, and this thread seems to have got alot of interest, and got people talking about it, which is what the forum is about isn't it?