Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum

Big Picture

Coach
  • Content Count

    2,073
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

963 Excellent

Member Profile

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Southwestern Ontario, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

3,525 profile views
  1. It is, especially in late season matches when there's often a fierce wind favouring one end of the field. Years ago now a team conceded three safties rather than punt into such a wind from deep in their own end, and they gave the other team their margin of victory.
  2. In fact I've often encountered the views which I ascribed to CFL followers in the past when I've discussed any of those questions with them. I recall one time a few years ago now when an onside punt was used in an attempt to keep possession — one of the few remaining differences between the Canadian version of gridiron and the US version — and I recall that it was widely called "bush league" by just about everyone not part of the team which attempted it. I'm not certain now but I think that match involved BC. Re the challenges facing players moving between the two versions of gridiron as compared to those moving between RU and RL or Gaelic football and Australian football, consider this: whereas in cross-code rugby matches teams have invariably won under their own rules and under composite rules AFL pros have their hands full playing the GAA amateurs under composite rules, in the two Can-Am Bowls played in Tampa in the 1970s under CIAU (as the CIS was then known) rules, the US won comfortably both times and without their best players too. QED
  3. No, because they see a first down on the 35 as better than one just inside the field of play when it only costs them one point.
  4. No, the kicking team gets the point if the ball is not run out. In the old days when the game had less scoring, teams didn't want to give up that point. Nowadays they're happy to concede it.
  5. The rule which gives the kicking team one point when the ball is kicked into the goal area and not run out by the other team. Originally the other team had to drop-out from the 25 yard line after, but nowadays they start with a first down on the 35 instead. The goal line drop-out in RL is clearly am improved version of the rouge. I can remember when teams routinely ran kicks back out into the field of play even though back then no blocking was allowed on kick returns other than kickoffs, now they routinely kill it instead. Nowadays rouges are rare except on missed field goal attempts, so modern administrators and followers of the game assume that's why the rule was created in the first place which is nonsense. 12 rouges were scored in the first Grey Cup final in early December 1909 between Toronto and Parkdale, at a time when field goals could only be kicked by a drop kick. The idea that a dozen (or more) field goals were attempted by drop kicks in a match played on a muddy field in December is ludicrous, those rouges were obviously the results of teams trying to score touchdowns via kicks in general play as we often see in RL.
  6. There isn't any real difference to speak of. The distinctive Canadian rules which were fundamental to the game when the Grey Cup was inaugurated have been marginalized little by little over time to the point where neither the game's administrators nor its followers have a clue why the few which remain were invented in the first place. I only really understood why the rouge was brought in way back in the 19th century from watching RL, because as a rule designed for rugby football it's barely relevant in the bastardized so-called "Canadian football" of today. If you ask the game's modern followers what it so different from the US game they'll usually mention that teams use the forward pass more, which ironically is one of the changes imported from the US and which led teams to look south for players in preference to recruiting Canadian players!
  7. The NFL gave the CFL an interest-free loan of (if memory serves) 5 million $ which was eventually repaid. Subsequently Football (sic) Canada joined the International Federation of American (sic) Football (sic), which exposed the lie of Canadian gridiron being fundamentally different from the Usonian version. That was the culmination of several decades of a once uniquely Canadian game gradually becoming a variant of the Usonian game and a de facto subsidiary of it. Believe it or not, it's widely believed here that when Usonian players come up to the CFL they have a big adjustment to make despite the adjustment for players moving between RU and RL or Gaelic football and Australian football being much greater.
  8. Rugby League yes, Rugby Union no. RL is to all intents and purposes an improved version of the uniquely Canadian game which was played here when the Grey Cup was inaugurated, so RL is the true Canadian football.
  9. Yours truly promoted that very idea in the mid-1990s when the league was on the verge of going under by means of an op-ed which I had published in both the Globe and Mail and the Montreal Gazette, but instead they went cap in hand to the NFL for financial aid. If they wouldn't do it then, they sure wouldn't now when they're in much better shape.
  10. And in the case of cornerbacks you don't have to teach them how to tackle. They already know how, they just need to adjust their technique. They're already accustomed to positioning themselves based on the other team's alignment and where they run too, again they just need to learn to read the play in RL because it's not the same as gridiron.
  11. Can you say anything about what their gridiron background was, such as what positions they'd played or at what level?
  12. No, because those players who've played both are primarily gridiron players, not RU players.
  13. I for one never understood why so many posters didn't like him, I've found his commentary to be good.
×
×
  • Create New...