stop it! You are looking more foolish by the post



You stated that you believed that the Bomb was an idea introduced to RL from Gridiron.....your stupid attempts to try to turn this into a which code came first debate/history lesson are laughable.

Rugby Football....became Rugby Union and Rugby League........The Eton Wall game predates Rugby Football and the high kick chased by players comes from that.
<s>Gridiron Troll <s>

the name of the game in 1895 was NORTHERN UNION.

not northern league. the rule changes we associate with RL didnt happen in 1895.

the game played by NU clubs was the same pre and post 1895 until 1907.

ie the game of rugby

wrong (you're up early by the way)

Rugby Football was the original game........Union and League are just the two of games that came from it. American Football is also a decendant of Rugby Football.

In the late 1800's, various rules were applied according to where you played the game (mostly English Public Schools).......the myth about WW Ellis aside, the rules that were adapted to unify the game into 1 universal code were drawn up at Rugby School.....hense it became Rugby Football as opposed to Association Football.

Prior to these rules, handling of the ball was allowed, but not funning towards the goal line of the other team.......at some stage, this became permitted and the split from Association Football was complete. The Ball shape comes from the old leather/pig skin that used to get out of shape from all the handling.

Dally....you are out of your depth here....please don't stop. I am enjoying this so much.


<s> Gridiron Troll <s>

I'm pretty sure I've seen people in other forms of football kicking it long in the hope that their big lad would beat the defender to the ball. Who'd have thought that Lombardi was so influential?

Just not true, Dally. For example, we dropped the lineout in 1897 and made many other changes in the years that followed - probably more in the first 10 years than in the 100 since. American football also ditched lineouts in the 1890s.

Also, the RFU was formed in 1871. They played international game against Scotland that year, too.

Back on topic; I found something under my dad's bed while cleaning out, it's from 97ish, but it's just a cutout, no idea who it's by.


Interesting article. Wonder if this would have worked.

And while we're at it, the term "Garryowen" used by ruggah types who can't bring themselves to say up'n'under or bomb comes from the Irish Rugby Union club of the same name - who made the tactic famous in the [i1920s[/i.

Those posh Irish types ripped off Gibson and used a time travel device to falsify history.

Interesting indeed.

Having two conferences would be a great way forward for the game down under. More expansion clubs and retaining the old fashioned Sydney rivalries sounds perfect.

The potential is there to expand the game as much as they would like. New Zealand rugby league would have huge potential benefits and PNG if they could find a way to bring professional rugby into their country.

The gap between Aus/Nz and GB is going to get wider

That system, implemented 97ish would have been perfect. Now, I don't know. Conferences are the way forward, but this system was based on old division.

Played there on more than one occassion...great Rugby Club. One of the urban myths is that ALL union clubs are packed with Posh Public Schoolboy types....I doubt any of the Munster lads I know would ever fall into the posh category

....more like culchie redneck gobs....

1906/7 was when the major changes were made, i think from memory dropping 2 players and bringing in the ptb.

have a look at when wigan, hull or huddersfield were formed, its all before 1871.

rugby pre dates the establishment of ru

interesting article.

rl1908.com./History/1906.htm major rule changes in 1906. so for 11 years it was basically the old rugby rl1908.com./History/northern-union.htm talks about the "new rugby" ie rugby league in 1906.

rl1908.com./History/1906.htm major rule changes in 1906. so for 11 years it was basically the old rugby rl1908.com./History/northern-union.htm talks about the "new rugby" ie rugby league in 1906.

rl1908.com./History/1895.htm talks of the history of the rugby game note rugby game is not rugby union all that happened in 1895 is that many northern rugby clubs elected to have a new governing body to control the sport rather than be run by the rfu thats all.

rl1908.com./History/1895.htm talks of the history of the rugby game note rugby game is not rugby union all that happened in 1895 is that many northern rugby clubs elected to have a new governing body to control the sport rather than be run by the rfu thats all.

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

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

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

its important for the history of RL.

RL clubs histories pre date 1895.

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

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

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

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

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

anything less gives them more credibility than they deserve

when our clubs broke away they took their history with them

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

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

id rather emphasise that it was basically the same game

the only real difference was the governing body

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

there certainly wasnt

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 years i think before the RFU was formed.

the rules of rugby werent invented by the RFU.

:2l3449er
No need to get snipey because you're digging a hole for yourself!

I acknowledged the fact that the RFU were established after the rules of rugby were formed:
[i:2l3449er"...the fact is the RFU was established[u:2l3449er on the back of[/u:2l3449er those original rugby rules..."[/i:2l3449er

:2l3449er
Yes, I am also very aware of that. But just because they were formed before the RFU doesn't alter the fact that they played the laws made by the RFU after their formation, and then a competition that split from the RFU based on those laws made from the RFU (and then later the IRFB).

>>>various public school football laws (including Rugby and Eton)>>>Schism>>>Formations of the FA and RFU.

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

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

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

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

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

Most of them do.



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



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

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

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

I'd probably be more inclined to go for:

Sydney Conference:
Canterbury Bulldogs
Cronulla Sharks
Manly Sea Eagles
Parramatta Eels
Penrith Panthers
South Sydney Rabbitohs
St George-Illawarra Dragons
Sydney Roosters
Wests Tigers

Oceanic Conference:
Brisbane Broncos (QLD)
Canberra Raiders (ACT)
Central Coast Bears (Country, NSW)
Gold Coast Titans (WLD)
Melbourne Storm (VIC)
Newcastle Knights (Country, NSW)
New Zealand Warriors (NZL)
North Queensland Cowboys (QLD)
Perth Reds (WA)

Any further expansion would see Central Coast Bears into the Sydney Conference (as they are part North Sydney Bears in their history so would make sense).