The RU mob would struggle to agree to a merger of RU and RL.

From an RL point of view, would it be enough to get agreement on the combined game's Laws by adopting RU Laws but with an irrevocable undertaking to just make two simple amendments;

-13 players a side

-scrap line-outs

With any further rule changes to evolve over time by agreement?

The benefit of securing a merger would be that (existing RL) clubs in NSW, Queensland and the North of England could dominate an enlarged global game.

Are you daft or what



I had to check to see if it was April 1st

Next Churchill will solve the problems in Israel and Palestine.

"If you all just shake hands and accept each other's right to live and have your own homeland as well as sharing Jerusalem I can see this ending well for all concerned".

Are you on drugs?

I'd merge if RU agrees to become 13 a side code scrapping lineouts, rucks & mauls whilst adopting the six tackle rule, awarding 4 points for a try and two for a conversion whilst also bringing in the 40/20 rule. Do all that and I think they have a deal

We've spent one hundred years evolving the game of rugby, why would we want to go back?

What would the purpose or benefit of a merged game be?

Union will be amateur in Australia within fifteen years. Properly amateur this time. I think their remaining junior clubs would jump at an opportunity to participate in RL comps here.


Internet bragging rights

The benefits would be a single code of Rugby that would be better place to compete on a domestic and world stage with other sports. Imagine an English league with Leicester, Northampton etc, combined with Wigan, Leeds etc. It'd be a helluva league. And the rah-rah boys have a much better supported international game than we'll ever have. Couple that with the blue-chip sponsors that seem to be drawn to the 15-a side game, and there are massive benefits.

The downside is, that the new game would be utter tripe, because it'd almost certainly be RU with 13 players. Lineouts, rucks,mauls. Constant kicking. I doubt the RL fans would adopt that.

I wonder how an experimental mini-series between the two codes would work. Top 2 SL teams vs top-two in RU, in a mini-league. Try some different rules and see what sort of game we'd get. Drop line-outs and two players, but with contested scrums and rucks/mauls. Or 15 a side limited tackles.

It'll never happen. Completely fantasy.

Compete with which sports? Tennis? Darts? The NFL? Boxing? How will such a hybrid code take fans from those? Will the hybrid game have more total fans and revenues than the current combined SL and RU? Can't really see it.

There is always the chance that League and Union might merge although personally I doubt it will ever happen. But if things had been slightly different in the early 1890s, there might have been just one code of rugby in this country and equally internationally. This is a theme that a recently published novel by London League Publications explores. It is based on answering the question "what would have happened if before August 1895 the Northern clubs had been in the majority and had control of the game". Written by Peter Lush it is fiction but it is possible that things could have gone that way. What a pity it didn't. More details on "Rugby Football: A United Game" shown on www.llpshop.co.uk.

There is always the chance that League and Union might merge although personally I doubt it will ever happen. But if things had been slightly different in the early 1890s, there might have been just one code of rugby in this country and equally internationally. This is a theme that a recently published novel by London League Publications explores. It is based on answering the question "what would have happened if before August 1895 the Northern clubs had been in the majority and had control of the game". Written by Peter Lush it is fiction but it is possible that things could have gone that way. What a pity it didn't. More details on "Rugby Football: A United Game" shown on www.llpshop.co.uk.

RL as it is but taken on by the clout of the IRB. RL has the game, RU has the backing and marketing men.

This. It's absolutely right.

But it'll never happen!

All comes down to the way the ball is recycled in possession. Everything else is window-dressing.

If you are allowed to retain the ball in the tackle, then you can take more risks without fear of losing possession. You also have far fewer penalties and scrums because of breakdowns in play, as rucks and mauls are always going to be very prone to errors and infringements.

How to re-start - lineouts, competitive scrums, drop-outs etc - the scoring system, the number of players even, these are all issues which could be adapted. But as long as there is a requirement to release the ball in the tackle, and no secure possession, then you will have a game which is essentially about kicking for territory and hoping to score from a setpiece, peppered with lots of stoppages for scrums and penalties.

The decision on possession would essentially decide whether the game was league with amendments, or union with amendments. There is no middle ground.

Excellent observation RH.

IT's just that it is so galling that our (RL) players do not get the appropriate level of recognition or media coverage.

For example Will Carling was, in relative terms, not fit to lace the boots of contempories such as say a Garry Schofield in his pomp. But look at the unfair disparity in general recognition in this country.

If the codes merged there'd be a much greater emphasis on the international competition as that is where most of the money lies.

Look at other small-mid sized international sports worldwide, cricket, hockey, etc. Chasing/expanding the international game eventually kills off the club game. In Australia you'd basically be handing the country over to the year-long AFL and soccer club comps while a merged RL/RU would simply take the place of what RU is now; non-existent clubs and one or two well covered internationals a year...

Give it a couple of generations and the next gen Inglis, Tomkins, Foran, etc would be growing up idolising the week-to-week players of their favourite AFL/soccer club and the unified rugby would lose many, many players and fans.

There is already a hybrid game, it's called "Super Series", or as I call it "Rugby League with Line Outs".

In "Super Series" the way the laws are 'interpreted' (or in some cases 'ignored') means that if you're going forward you can pretty much do what you want at the ruck as long as the ball comes out quickly, while if you're defending you're hardly allowed to counter-ruck or touch the ball. Furthermore the maul is ref'd in such a way as to pretty much outlaw it.
All done to speed up the game for TV and compete with RL and Aussie Rules.

Trouble is, it's not really Rugby Union. It strikes me that people who are into union want to watch union, not some ised hybrid resulting from wholesale re-interpretation of the laws.

Similarly, those of us who love Rugby League first and foremost want to watch League, not some derivative.

Is Jerusalem in Salford?

...you really are mistaking your juvenile wishlist for facts.

53,250 was the crowd average for the Wanabbees in 2014, with 37 the average at Home over 7 tests.

Players could play League rules at club level and Union rules at international level...what? It's not as if we don't already play under different rules internationally!

.

A merger would be pointless for both parties in Britain as it would be a union takeover. RL spectators would just watch football. Wigan is already a football town as is Leeds.

Merger would be pointless ,because you would have fan teams popping up as RL teams the same as Fc utd of Manchester are to football now

The only people interested in a merger would be the TV companies.

I am a fan of both codes and I don't want a merged game.

You may see more dual code players, given the seasons alignments, but I very much doubt I'll see a merged game in my lifetime.

There maybe one attempt at a merged game, on TV. It'll make the headlines, but be a rubbish spectacle, watched only by the curious.