NRL "Off the ball"

[Northern_Union]

Re: AFL is the better game. says NRL diehard

Bloody hell.....this is like being in the fight club over at NFI unlimited all over again. We know AFL fans don't rate league and us league fans don't rate AFL. Can that satisfy everyone and we can just get on with the respective seasons as they unfold?

 

[.Shotties.]

Re: AFL is the better game. says NRL diehard

We know AFL fans don't rate league and us league fans don't rate AFL.

That's a rather prejudicial statement.

 

[Northern_Union]

Re: AFL is the better game. says NRL diehard

Differcult to come up with any other statment given whats been posted before now.

 

[storm fan]

Re: AFL is the better game. says NRL diehard

I have no interest in comparing, I just find Storm Fans ongoing lying in almost any discussion on the board baffling. 25 years immersion in a sport and the sum total analysis is "seagulls fumbling over a chip" and "unstructured".

Homegirl please.

Look who is starting again. If I have lied then prove it with more then just your stupid impressions. I have explained the lack of analysis was at the same standard as the analysis of the other sport that was in the question that thread that now no longer exists. Move on, everyone else has.

 

[.Shotties.]

Look who is starting again. If I have lied then prove it with more then just your stupid impressions.

Burden of proof lies with the claimant. You claim you strong armed some players "in Swans development" at a nightclub or that you knew nothing but footy until 25 its on you to back it up if someone calls you on it.

 

[Aucklander]

Enough already. Quit it or GTFO. Last warning.

 

[Aucklander]

It's my anniversary of sorts tomorrow. 20 years with my wife. Our first date was to Rod Stewart's concert at Western Springs on the 14th of feb.

We're going to his concert on sat night to celebrate. Hopefully it's just as good as the first.

 

[Munro_Mick]

Re: AFL is the better game. says NRL diehard

Munro is the most disappointing. Shotties has been causing trouble for while but Munro has actually got a understanding of a conversation/debate. I remember a good debate/conversation Munro and myself had on the development/history of Aussie Rules as a sport which was in good spirits and a quality conversation without any need for insults towards anyone or anything.

actually, I was hoping you realised that I was trying to be a little tongue in cheek with my response to you.......note the couple of emoticons (I didn't riddle the post with emoticontageion),

the references to glory boy forwards, use of phrasing like "Bah humbug" and belittling of Northern English folk......I kinda hoped was taken as (average) attempts at humour.

ALthough - I was perhaps a little more serious around the tackling and softness aspects but I thought I was reasonably fair (or was I making gross generalisations too??).

so, at anyrate, if I sometimes come up short on smilies, it's just an attempt to avoid emoticontamination.........yeh'd never see me doin' tha'

 

[Castres Treize]

Can someone tell me what sport these quotes are from?

An editorial in
the Football Record in 1912 congratulated players for their performances
in recent games with the words ‘the work was high class. No Chinese
factory stamp on it. Pure White Australian’.60

was for the early decades of its history known as ‘the bloodstained fellows’13

http://www.palgrave.com/PDFs/9780230241251.Pdf

 

[.Shotties.]

What point are you attempting to make with 100 year old plus quotes?

 

[Castres Treize]

Point? I think it makes its own point plain obvious don't you?

Plus this thread is called, "off the ball" so get stuffed. If you hate or can't handle my posts, put me on ignore, sook!

 

[Munro_Mick]

Point? I think it makes its own point plain obvious don't you?

Plus this thread is called, "off the ball" so get stuffed. If you hate or can't handle my posts, put me on ignore, sook!

selective quotation for what reason?

"However, like all Australian sports, Australian football was no less
racist than the society that nurtured it."

btw

need Sean Fagan to recognise this one (Fagan's still seemingly convinced that Wills was not just the main - but, effectively the sole - author of the game in the early years.....)

"Firstly,there is no evidence to suggest Wills was the primary force behind
the drawing up of the 1859 set of football rules."

 

[.Shotties.]

Point? I think it makes its own point plain obvious don't you?

Plus this thread is called, "off the ball" so get stuffed. If you hate or can't handle my posts, put me on ignore, sook!

So a hundred years ago there was socially accepted racism in Australian football?

I think you need to read this..

Until the 1960s, the code of rugby league reflected Australian attitudes and values by virtually excluding Aboriginal people from playing at a high level in what was then a white men’s game.

 

[Aucklander]

Point? I think it makes its own point plain obvious don't you?

Plus this thread is called, "off the ball" so get stuffed. If you hate or can't handle my posts, put me on ignore, sook!

Since you've been away and might have missed it, Aussie Rules talk is limited to game talk only in this thread from now on.

 

[benchwarmer5]

I'm sure both codes were as racist as **** back then
Now days they both **** themselves out to absolutely anyone/thing for potential growth

 

[storm fan]

1901 - Halifax 8-2 Salford - Northern Union (aka Rugby League) in the snow

[youtube]U853M7B2PKU[/youtube]

 

[Northern_Union]

They seem to be forming scrums at the drop of a hat. Why would that be? Certainly isn't union but doesn't look like the league we all know today either.

 

[Bomber Bears]

unlimited possesion - scrums were the way to get the ball back.

Although IIRC there was little difference between league and union in the early years of league, it was after 1908 the differences started to emerge

 

[Northern_Union]

I knew about unlimited possesion but i wasn't aware of the scrum being used as a way to restart play or to contest the ball.

 

[Aucklander]

Amazing footage.

 

[storm fan]

unlimited possesion - scrums were the way to get the ball back.

Although IIRC there was little difference between league and union in the early years of league, it was after 1908 the differences started to emerge

Actually there were a number of changes before the 1908.

1895
During the inaugural season of rugby league, the rules were changed to require the scrum-half to retire behind a scrum until the ball was out.*The scrum-half would now be deemed offside if they moved past their team's forwards while the ball was in the opposing pack. When the game was introduced to Australia several years later, the change was noted by*The Sydney Sportsman*on 15 April 1908 to "make the game fast and open" as it allowed the side that wins the contest for the ball to mobilise their backs "without interference".*Before this a scrum-half had been permitted to follow the ball as it progressed through the packed forwards of their opponents half of the scrum.
1896
If a team committed a deliberate knock-on a free kick would now be awarded to the opposing team.*Previously a scrum would have been formed in such an event.
The scrum-half feeding the ball into the scrum was required to do so from the same side of the scrum as the referee was positioned.
1897
The options presented to a team as a means to re-start play after the ball had been kicked into touch were changed.*The line-out was abolished and replace with the*punt-out.*The team would now be able to choose whether to have a scrum or a punt-out (also known as a "kick-in"), where previously the options had been to have a scrum or a line-out.*A punt-out was taken from the touch-line by a player who could kick the ball back into play, in any direction.
In order to promote the scoring of tries:
The value of a drop goal was reduced from four points to two points.mended:*NSWRFL, 1971.
The value of a penalty goal was reduced from three points to two points.
The value of a goal from mark was reduced from four points to two points.Abolished:*NSWRFL, 1922.
The value of a field goal was reduced from four points to two points.Abolished:*NSWRFL, 1922.
1899
The location of the re-start after a try had been scored, either a place-kick if the try had been converted or a drop-kick if the try-scoring team was unable to convert, was moved from the 25-yard line of the non-scoring team to the halfway line.
After a player had been tackled a loose scrum was now ordered formed to allow the ball to be brought back into play.
1900
Defenders were banned from charging players attempting a place-kick at goal.
The location at which a penalty was awarded against a defender that had obstructed a kicker after the ball had been kicked was changed from where the incident took place to where the ball had landed.
1901
Should a player go into touch while in possession of the ball play would now be restarted with a scrum rather than a punt-out.*The punt-out was retained for those times when the ball was kicked into touch.
The knocking-on rule was altered. While trying to catch the ball, a player would now be permitted to "juggle" it, i.e. the ball could be re-gathered if it had not been caught cleanly in the first attempt to take possession.*Previously a "clean catch" had been required, except in instances when the ball moved backwards after touching the hands or arms, because a knock to the ball causing forward movement was classed a knock-on.
Another change to the knock-on rule meant, provided that the ball did not touch the ground, play would continue uninterrupted if a player dropped the ball into the hands of a player on the opposing team.
1902
The punt-out, or kick-in, was abolished. In the event of the ball being kicked into touch, play would restart with a scrum 10 yards infield.
1903
Kicking the ball into touch*on the full, i.e. without the ball bouncing inside the field of play before going into touch, was no longer allowed for any kick except a penalty kick.
1904
A team could no longer position more than three players in the front row of a scrum. Previously there had been no restrictions on how many members of a team could join the front row.
The knocking-on rule was adjusted so that in the event the non-offending team picked up the ball after their opponents had knocked-on, and even if it had touched the ground, play would continue.
1906
The*play-the-ball*rule was introduced. Previously after each tackle had been completed or a player had been "held" the rules mandated that a*scrum*be ordered by the referee. These scrums had taken up a significant portion of game time and it was felt that the ball was hidden from spectators too often as a result, diminishing the game's entertainment value.*The play-the-ball restored the early rugby football principle that play does not carry on when the player is no longer standing, but that a tackle is complete when a player is "held" on the ground or while on their feet.*The*Yorkshire Post*commented on 13 June 1906 that the proposals, "provided in effect for a return to the 'play the ball' rule".*In New Zealand, a newspaper column in*The Truth*on 10 November 1906 while describing the sport to its readers wrote, "the most excellent rule, that was obliterated from the earlier laws of the Union has again been introduced, 'That a player, when collared, must put the ball into play'."*Amended:*NSWRFL, 1926;*RFL, 1927.
The number of players on each team was reduced from fifteen to thirteen.
If a ball was kicked out of play*on the full, a scrum back where it had been kicked from would now be formed.

 

[moto748]

Very interesting, sf.

 

[moto748]

Interesting piece on the split by Clare Balding on BBC radio. I don't think the BBC i-player is available outside the UK, but there may be sites you can view it through:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bwfyd

 

[Munro_Mick]

Storm Fan -

I've always found it interesting the tweaking of scoring options/values across the codes to encourage the style of game evolution that was desired.

Given that Rugby and Aust Footy and Soccer all started with the majority of goals scored dictating the winner -

we've seen soccer retain this - but, allow anything in the net to qualify as a goal (need not be kicked) - but, oddly, no secondary or 'count back' style scoring option.

in Aust Football, the behind was tallied for sometime, but, oddly NOT used - and so a game could be drawn with a score of 2 goals each but 7 behinds to 4. What was the point?? One could argue that Aust Football should have used the behind ONLY to separate teams level on goals - but, with the 6 pt value vs 1, the score is 'tallied' and most goals need not win. However, a goal is still the primary object.

The Rugby codes are the interesting ones. Starting out with only goals scoring, and a 'try' being just that, the right to have a 'try' at goal. Then the try was used as a count back method should no majority of goals be available.
But, when the tinkering attributed 'live' value to the 'try' in a live tallied score total - it started a bit of a 'game changer' to where you now have RL in particular where the 'goal' is a secondary consideration. Looking at RU I can understand the dilemma when the option to attempt a try is not deemed attractive enough - and games get decided on penalty and/or field goals.
As a non-Rugby person, some of the other rules tweaks are probably a little too subtle for me to fully understand the impact in play - - however, tweaking the value of goals vs trys is pretty obvious.

At least you can only 'kick' a goal but, the primary score by some way now in RL is a 'try'.

What I've always wondered though - how much of the paths taken by the Rugby codes vs the Soccer codes respectively - was to achieve greater distinction to the other style of game. i.e. the handling game vs the dribbling game. Old Rugbeians vs Old Etonians etc. Because, it seems to me, there had to be a fair motive to really accentuate the non-kicking element of Rugby in favour of try scoring and more handling - - whilst the soccer folk so desperate to not use hands were willing to let the 'header' pass the loophole of the rules of a 'dribbling' game!

 

[storm fan]

I just typed out a response to you and it failed to post. Argh!

I think games evolved to please the viewers rather then being different from other games. If you were to create a game surely you would want the best bits of everything. There were many different types of football in the early to mid 1800's which included one that resembles Gaelic Football without the above goal - almost like Soccer with big Rugby hits. Sounds fun to play but wouldn't be great for spectators.

My other response was longer then this, apologies.