Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Every newspaper makes editorial and content decisions on what their readership will be most interested in.  These are essentially commercial decisions as their commercial success is based on circulation (print), readership (online) and the advertising revenue that they can attract based on these two metrics and the assumed demographic of the audience.

The Sunday Times would never miss out a big event in cricket and RU from their sports coverage and year preview as these are essential to the readership they are catering to.  This is their decision and they will succeed or fail based on it. 

They may have expressed regret that they missed the RLWC but don't expect it to change in the future as I am 100% sure that they won't see this event of being of interest to their target readership - any email reply to complaint etc. is standard placation tactics.

In 2021, Rugby League has many more ways of reaching its audience with messages about our World Cup and these are the things we should be concentrating on. 

The only thing I don't understand about all of this is why people are surprised and think it may change.

Edited by Dunbar
Spelling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You know what, I am not sure the sport could do much more than what it has done so far on the World Cup. The draw was made at Buckingham Palace by the Duke of Sussex among others and the venues a

Just to complete the story, this week's sports section of The Sunday Times begins with a letter from someone in York, criticising the RLWC omission last week, and, unusually, there is a brief but uneq

Both can be true.  The reality is that there aren't many RL journalists out there these days, particuarly at the nationals.  The journalists that are out there are pressured to deliver more

Posted Images

8 posts deleted. If you're a new member, try not to jump in with both feet making both accusations. Not a great start to forum membership.

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lyvet domicile said:

Pure bigotry pretty much cuts it. 

That may be true for a small informed minority, but from my experience for the vast majority of England, let alone the UK, "rugby" is red roses, six nations and Swing Low. People are genuinely shocked in my experience to find out there is a different version played primarily in Yorkshire and Lancashire. 

I don't think you can excuse willful ignorance, but the sport has given no reason for most people to be anything but that either. Its annoying from both angles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lyvet domicile said:

A minority of supposed sports experts? 

Who I'm 100% sure grew up outside of an RL hotbed and for the reasons stated above will generally think Rugby is covered by the lot that play at Twickenham to an even greater extent than they consider football to be the Premier League and nothing much more in these Isles. 

Yes they could be better, there's no real demand for them to be so though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

That may be true for a small informed minority, but from my experience for the vast majority of England, let alone the UK, "rugby" is red roses, six nations and Swing Low. People are genuinely shocked in my experience to find out there is a different version played primarily in Yorkshire and Lancashire. 

I don't think you can excuse willful ignorance, but the sport has given no reason for most people to be anything but that either. Its annoying from both angles.

Exactly right. There's a tendency when you are immersed in something to think that most people feel similar.... reality is often that they don't. 

I'm of the opinion that many more people would actually quite like RL if they were exposed to it. Not become rabid fans and drop all other interests but like it all the same. Keeping the game where it is ensures that this will never happen though. 

Covid aside, if you were to drive to practically anywhere in the UK at this time of year and go in a pub and ask 'is the rugby on'? People would think you were talking about the 6 Nations. This used to be a source of annoyance to me but it's actually a logical thing. And until RL wants to break out of its ghetto, this won't change.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Exactly right. There's a tendency when you are immersed in something to think that most people feel similar.... reality is often that they don't. 

I'm of the opinion that many more people would actually quite like RL if they were exposed to it. Not become rabid fans and drop all other interests but like it all the same. Keeping the game where it is ensures that this will never happen though. 

Covid aside, if you were to drive to practically anywhere in the UK at this time of year and go in a pub and ask 'is the rugby on'? People would think you were talking about the 6 Nations. This used to be a source of annoyance to me but it's actually a logical thing. And until RL wants to break out of its ghetto, this won't change.

Absolutely mate I'm of the same opinion given my experience. 

Its actually even more perverse in some ways, as say from my uni experience in Leeds, I'd argue a reasonably high percentage would know the Rhinos were Leeds' rugby team on how it is hard to ignore in that part of the city if nothing else, but only the minority of those that are "rugby fans" would know the rugby they played wasn't the same as the Six Nations. Is that then a win for Leeds Rhinos but a loss for Rugby League?

I think this discussion shows that FTA coverage of Super League, even just 1 game a week, is essential to trying to regain or reaffirm our place in the national consciousness. The cost of being exclusively behind Sky's paywall is beginning to bite and the odd weekends of the challenge cup or rare England games just aren't enough.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its actually even more perverse in some ways, as say from my uni experience in Leeds, I'd argue a reasonably high percentage would know the Rhinos were Leeds' rugby team on how it is hard to ignore in that part of the city if nothing else, but only the minority of those that are "rugby fans" would know the rugby they played wasn't the same as the Six Nations. Is that then a win for Leeds Rhinos but a loss for Rugby League?

Don`t take this personally. I`m well aware it`s an instance of a general tendency.

If I were an uninitiated objective reader of the above paragraph, I would either find it incomprehensible or draw the conclusion that there was a game called "Rugby".

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Don`t take this personally. I`m well aware it`s an instance of a general tendency.

If I were an uninitiated objective reader of the above paragraph, I would either find it incomprehensible or draw the conclusion that there was a game called "Rugby".

Which is exactly the point I was making, for the vast majority of the population, there is just a game called "rugby".

That does actually work both ways, but for RL to be the "rugby" referred to on far less occasions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Don`t take this personally. I`m well aware it`s an instance of a general tendency.

If I were an uninitiated objective reader of the above paragraph, I would either find it incomprehensible or draw the conclusion that there was a game called "Rugby".

Essentially he means that people know that Leeds Rhinos are a rugby team. But beyond that they don’t know whether they play a different type of rugby to the one they might see England or the All Blacks play.

It’s sort of like.....I don’t have a clue about most dance music and couldn’t tell you the difference between deep house and dubstep. To me, it’s dance music. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Which is exactly the point I was making, for the vast majority of the population, there is just a game called "rugby".

That does actually work both ways, but for RL to be the "rugby" referred to on far less occasions.

So you were not saying "the Rhinos were Leeds` rugby team", or "the rugby they played". The offending phrases weren`t originally within quotation marks.

If that`s the case, you may consider yourself officially exonerated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

So you were not saying "the Rhinos were Leeds` rugby team", or "the rugby they played". The offending phrases weren`t originally within quotation marks.

If that`s the case, you may consider yourself officially exonerated.

I am struggling to see the point you are making on this one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

So you were not saying "the Rhinos were Leeds` rugby team", or "the rugby they played". The offending phrases weren`t originally within quotation marks.

If that`s the case, you may consider yourself officially exonerated.

I really don't get what you're confused about mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Essentially he means that people know that Leeds Rhinos are a rugby team. But beyond that they don’t know whether they play a different type of rugby to the one they might see England or the All Blacks play.

It’s sort of like.....I don’t have a clue about most dance music and couldn’t tell you the difference between deep house and dubstep. To me, it’s dance music. 

My point was whether RL fans regard Leeds Rhinos as a "Rugby" team or refer to the game they play as "Rugby".

If RL fans don`t take the trouble to make the distinction between League and Union, we can hardly be surprised if others assume there is one game called "Rugby".

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

My point was whether RL fans regard Leeds Rhinos as a "Rugby" team or refer to the game they play as "Rugby".

If RL fans don`t take the trouble to make the distinction between League and Union, we can hardly be surprised if others assume there is one game called "Rugby".

I do make the distinction, but the vast majority of people (therefore not dyed in the wool RL fans) won't, which is the point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I think it was you who was the lucky recipient of that evolutionary lineout garment. The ideal gift for a "Rugby" fan.

Thanks. That's really cleared it up.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

My point was whether RL fans regard Leeds Rhinos as a "Rugby" team or refer to the game they play as "Rugby".

If RL fans don`t take the trouble to make the distinction between League and Union, we can hardly be surprised if others assume there is one game called "Rugby".

Oh I agree with that but I don’t think he was referring to RL fans, just students maybe

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I really don't get what you're confused about mate.

I understood and heartily agreed with the substance of your post. I was questioning whether some of the terminology in it, which is customarily used by RL fans, contributes to the very confusion you were alluding to.

Was quite happy for you to regard it as poor textual analysis on my part. Hence the follow-up post.

 

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I do make the distinction, but the vast majority of people (therefore not dyed in the wool RL fans) won't, which is the point.

Dyed in the wool RL fans of my acquaintance don`t, and never have. When I was younger, I didn`t. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I understood and heartily agreed with the substance of your post. I was questioning whether some of the terminology in it, which is customarily used by RL fans, contributes to the very confusion you were alluding to.

Was quite happy for you to regard it as poor textual analysis on my part. Hence the follow-up post.

 

Dyed in the wool RL fans of my acquaintance don`t, and never have. When I was younger, I didn`t. 

It is all about context.

When I was younger growing up in Wigan I used the phrase Rugby as it was blindingly obvious I was referring to League. As I move into other areas and now West London, I will always specifically say 'Rugby League' when referring to the sport I watch. 

Same on here... Rugby is League on this forum unless I am on the cross code section where I use the terms Rugby League and Rugby Union. 

As for my lineout t-shirt that I will never wear... Well that was a present from someone who I have explained the difference to many times but who can't be bothered with the difference.  It is like asking me to care enough to remember which Kardashian is which. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Oh I agree with that but I don’t think he was referring to RL fans, just students maybe

I`m standing by my view that any unpractised eye reading the post I initially replied to would interpret it as the writer referring to the Rhinos as Leeds` Rugby team, as well as some other students. And the writer referring to one type of Rugby in the six nations and another type played by the Rhinos, as well as some other students. If I`m being pedantic about the absence of quotation marks around some of the terms to make clear that everything is in the third person, I`m only doing what it says on my tin.

What the general issue reduces to is whether the game is "Rugby", and there are two versions of it. Or whether there are two games separately called Rugby League and Rugby Union. I would argue that for RL it`s vital the latter is the dominant perception. That is, if we don`t want to continue being instinctively overlooked by the likes of the Sunday Times.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Same on here... Rugby is League on this forum unless I am on the cross code section where I use the terms Rugby League and Rugby Union. 

Well Dunbar living in the south I simply correct people who don't use the term correctly rugby means RL what they're refering to is a sport called what time does the rugby start?

Such arguments as those above about confusion of terms are almost completely irrelevant to the matter in hand though,

The only reason such confusion exists is because of RL disappearance or removal from main stream legacy media outlets.

This will continue to be a problem for a sport trying to compete in the market place. It is an issue we used to be very clear on and united against, Now I think we have more people on our side of this fence that maintain there is nothing wrong with this situation. Added to people who are terrified of rocking the boat we're up faecal creek without the obvious.

 

  • Like 1

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Oxford said:

Well Dunbar living in the south I simply correct people who don't use the term correctly rugby means RL what they're refering to is a sport called what time does the rugby start?

I am not surprised at all.  Personally, I take a rather less confrontational approach. And recognise that in the grand scheme of things, this is hardly relevant at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...