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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's not the point being argued.

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

To be fair he has a point,we came from the game of rugby which we still played after we broke away from the now RFU.
It's not our fault that our game has evolved and union is still a caveman monstrosity which is trying to be like RL(badly).

Fair point.

Best way would be to split the 9 Sydney clubs + Canberra, Central Coast and Newcastle into two 6s then I guess. Keep the three QLD clubs together, and have the expansion clubs (NZ Warriors, Melbourne and Perth) as the other group of three.

So maybe something like:

[uNorthern Conference:[/u
Brisbane Broncos (QLD)
Central Coast Bears (NSW)
Gold Coast Titans (QLD)
Manly Sea Eagles (Syd)
Newcastle Knights (NSW)
North Queensland Cowboys (QLD)
Parramatta Eels (Syd)
Penrith Panthers (Syd)
Wests Tigers (Syd)

[uSouthern Conference[/u:
Canberra Raiders (ACT)
Canterbury Bulldogs (Syd)
Cronulla Sharks (Syd)
Melbourne Storm (VIC)
New Zealand Warriors (NZ)
Perth Reds (WA)
South Sydney Rabbitohs (Syd)
St George-Illawarra Dragons (Syd)
Sydney Roosters (Syd)

No, we came from rugby union, which produced its laws based on the slightly different versions of Rugby football and other similar versions of football at the time that didn't agree with the rules devised by the Football Association.

It has nothing to do with how much rugby union has evolved since we split codes. It doesn't change the fact that we evolved from their rules in 1895. To say we didn't evolve from rugby union rules just isn't true. It's not an opinion thing, it's a fact.

When we split where we not playing the same game.

Of course. But do you imagine that the RFU suddenly decided to invent a new game? Quite the reverse, they became conservative and got rid of various experimental laws that the Northern Union had adopted.

The game that "we" were playing was the RFU's

Well done dally messenger



You have successfully managed to detract attention from your assertion that the Up'n'under/bomb was a tactic learnt/copied by RL from American Football.....you truly are RLFANS version of a politician the way you wriggled off that hook



Still, it has to be one of the funniest things posted on RLFANS in 2010

Yeah, but he's not exactly done it in a clever way. He's made just as stupid a comment instead by saying rugby league didn't come from rugby union!

it matters because RU has attempted to take that history from RL clubs

eg i think theres a halifax RU club or maybe it was huddersfield and they took over the history of what the northern union club achieved pre 1895.

its also aiding the RFUs believe that they are the original game and we are the b&&tard offshoot

its wrong

both union and league evolved from rugby

then the sport split in two under 2 different governing bodies

we did not set up a new sport, we continued the old sport under our own governing body. thats all.

the non sydney conferene would include all the queensland derbies, some country nsw teams and nz.

these games are all very valuable if the storm and perth arent as much

sydney viewers will still want to watch these games anyway

according to your logic then Hull FC were formed in 1895

go and tell your club to stop lieing about their formation date.

ive enjoyed giving the history lesson

thanks for your stupid comment that kicked it all off.

No it didn't. There was the RFU before and then the RFU and the NRFU (RFL) after. There wasn't two different bodies. One was the same and the other one was new.

Yes, we continued the old sport, which was rugby union (rules devised by the RFU). If you think that the rules that we adopted were the same as the rules before the RFU was formed then you're an idiot.

We evolved from rugby union. Get over it, it's a fact.