Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Well bug ger me.

The egg is formed in the uterus pointy end down (the same shape as the uterus) but turns in order to be born (laid) round end first!!!!!

Poor chicken.

Given the level of amnesia required to go through the process of laying more than one egg perhaps this explains who is employed to write for The Times?

 

 

 

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

1 hour ago, Oxford said:

Given the level of amnesia required to go through the process of laying more than one egg perhaps this explains who is employed to write for The Times?

I knew there was a link there somewhere.

Great minds think 4 dimensionally, I'd heard.

You confounded us, once again.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Youch !! Talk about making things difficult for yourself. Must be where the expression ` pushing one out backwards ` comes from.

I`m sure there must be a ` Why did the chicken cross the road  " joke in there somewhere, or maybe UP will have a limerick to suit the occasion.

 

Only thing I can think of is the Christmas cracker joke from The Good Life. -

"The Ooh-Aah bird is so-called because it lays square eggs."

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/01/2021 at 21:40, The Rocket said:

 Ideas like those RLWC face masks are brilliant though, you got to laugh though with the thread announcing them being called `RWC Face Masks`, ah well.. we`ll get there.

When the Sunday Times got emails complaining of the omission of the RLWC, it would not be a surprise if their initial thought was "didn`t we have the RWC in Japan not too long ago? It can`t have come round again so quickly".

If they spent a few minutes browsing this forum, it would be hard to persuade them that their confusion was unwarranted.

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

When the Sunday Times got emails complaining of the omission of the RLWC, it would not be a surprise if their initial thought was "didn`t we have the RWC in Japan not too long ago? It can`t have come round again so quickly".

If they spent a few minutes browsing this forum, it would be hard to persuade them that their confusion was unwarranted.

Don't give up mate, sooner or later, we'll convince the bug gers it really matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/01/2021 at 12:13, unapologetic pedant said:

When the Sunday Times got emails complaining of the omission of the RLWC, it would not be a surprise if their initial thought was "didn`t we have the RWC in Japan not too long ago? It can`t have come round again so quickly".

If they spent a few minutes browsing this forum, it would be hard to persuade them that their confusion was unwarranted.

Have a look at the bottom of the post on NSWRL- TV,  perhaps that`s how we should be marketing the game. I wonder what would be of the effect of dropping the `Rugby` altogether would be. Starting from the top. I suppose if it was going to take hold that`s where it would have to start.

 I don`t think the sky would fall in, it would be very interesting to speculate what the implications for the perception of our game would be. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 I don`t think the sky would fall in, it would be very interesting to speculate what the implications for the perception of our game would be. 

Spot on, Chicken Licken wasn't correct. Changing our brand to assault the market is not a Dunkirk moment. Of course we can't control how the press report this but that's a matter of taking control of the narrative, being proactive and preemptive. The announcement of ditching Rugby should be about moving firmly into this century and that such an old fashioned term though historically important in the sport is confusing, anachronistic and useless for a modern sport. It acts as a kind of restraint & weight which does not reflect how much our sport has moved on and the contemporary nature of our sport.

Being anchored to the term rugby has led certain media outlets to ignore us as a sport, we need to let them know we've moved on from this and that time of pretending we no longer exist, or never existed, is over.

 

Edited by Oxford
  • Like 1

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Spot on, Chicken Licken wasn't correct. Changing our brand to assault the market is not a Dunkirk moment. Of course we can't control how the press report this but that's a matter of taking control of the narrative, being proactive and preemptive. The announcement of ditching Rugby should be about moving firmly into this century and that such an old fashioned term though historically important in the sport is confusing, anachronistic and useless for a modern sport. It acts as a kind of restraint & weight which does not reflect how much our sport has moved on and the contemporary nature of our sport.

Being anchored to the term rugby has led certain media outlets to ignore us as a sport, we need to let them know we've moved on from this and that time of pretending we no longer exist, or never existed, is over.

 

That is a great argument. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Spot on, Chicken Licken wasn't correct. Changing our brand to assault the market is not a Dunkirk moment. Of course we can't control how the press report this but that's a matter of taking control of the narrative, being proactive and preemptive. The announcement of ditching Rugby should be about moving firmly into this century and that such an old fashioned term though historically important in the sport is confusing, anachronistic and useless for a modern sport. It acts as a kind of restraint & weight which does not reflect how much our sport has moved on and the contemporary nature of our sport.

Being anchored to the term rugby has led certain media outlets to ignore us as a sport, we need to let them know we've moved on from this and that time of pretending we no longer exist, or never existed, is over.

 

I was going to give you a `like` but your response is worth more than that. There is so much in there that makes sense. I particularly like the part about being " confusing, anachronistic and useless for a modern sport ". Well argued all round.

Nice work keeping the Gallus Gallus Domesticus references going as well.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Oxford said:

Being anchored to the term rugby has led certain media outlets to ignore us as a sport, we need to let them know we've moved on from this and that time of pretending we no longer exist, or never existed, is over.

I`ve said the following on many threads before - The best option is to refer to RL as "Rugby League" or "League" for short, and to RU as "Rugby Union" or "Union" for short. We do not have to jettison the word "Rugby" in order to do this. It requires only a modicum of thought and discipline.

We don`t know what the distinguishing effect of this would be over time, since we`ve never managed to do it. Nor, for 125/112 years thought it sufficiently important. RL people in England say "Rugby" when they mean RL, RL people in Australia say "Rugby" when they mean RU. Not exactly well-coordinated. And just possibly destined to cause a hint of confusion.

What would the complete absence of the word "Rugby" really achieve? It won`t stop the game of RL looking superficially like the game of RU. It won`t prevent players regularly moving between the codes which compounds the perception of similarity. And anyone who knows or looks into the history will see the change as an empty rebranding exercise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I`ve said the following on many threads before - The best option is to refer to RL as "Rugby League" or "League" for short, and to RU as "Rugby Union" or "Union" for short. We do not have to jettison the word "Rugby" in order to do this. It requires only a modicum of thought and discipline.

We don`t know what the distinguishing effect of this would be over time, since we`ve never managed to do it. Nor, for 125/112 years thought it sufficiently important. RL people in England say "Rugby" when they mean RL, RL people in Australia say "Rugby" when they mean RU. Not exactly well-coordinated. And just possibly destined to cause a hint of confusion.

What would the complete absence of the word "Rugby" really achieve? It won`t stop the game of RL looking superficially like the game of RU. It won`t prevent players regularly moving between the codes which compounds the perception of similarity. And anyone who knows or looks into the history will see the change as an empty rebranding exercise.

I don`t think it would be seen as an empty rebranding exercise at all, if done on a coordinated level world wide it could be seen as a long overdue message to fans, the corporate world and the general public saying we are entirely our own game, we want nothing to do with rugby union, we are a completely different game, compare them if you want to and see the difference.

I just wish it had been done 50 or 100 years ago so that we could have been reaping the benefits now.

An interesting comparison is how far American Football or Gridiron has come from its rugby union roots to the point that I am sure that most of its followers would laugh at the suggestion of a common ancestor. About time we did the same thing. Let the dead bury the dead.

 

 

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

I like your rebranding of "bug ger". I`m hearing it pronounced in a French accent with the stress on the second syllable. - "boo gerre".

Ha ha, that's exactly how I pronounce it at home, in front of the kids! Come 'ere you little boo gerre. 

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

I`ve said the following on many threads before - The best option is to refer to RL as "Rugby League" or "League" for short, and to RU as "Rugby Union" or "Union" for short. We do not have to jettison the word "Rugby" in order to do this. It requires only a modicum of thought and discipline.

We don`t know what the distinguishing effect of this would be over time, since we`ve never managed to do it. Nor, for 125/112 years thought it sufficiently important. RL people in England say "Rugby" when they mean RL, RL people in Australia say "Rugby" when they mean RU. Not exactly well-coordinated. And just possibly destined to cause a hint of confusion.

What would the complete absence of the word "Rugby" really achieve? It won`t stop the game of RL looking superficially like the game of RU. It won`t prevent players regularly moving between the codes which compounds the perception of similarity. And anyone who knows or looks into the history will see the change as an empty rebranding exercise.

I think you missed the point of why I wrote what I did.

Your points about the superficial similarity and player movement have been covered in depth on the forum and it is fascinating that we still talk about it given the evidence of the unsuccessful nature of  most Sport hopping.

Getting rid of the term Rugby would be part of a process that conservative fans would always have a problem with, because it's as much a part of our history as it is theirs.

The holding on to things from the past rather than rejoicing in them but moving on is essentially what has held RL back for the whole of its existence so the arguments for continuing along that same road seem light at best and illogical otherwise.

In the post you quoted I dealt with why this would be a good move and how it would be, in effect, RL taking charge rather than having to react all the time to poor coverage, no coverage and bad media coverage.

If rebranding is empty why is it undertaken so often and by so many and why on the whole, percentage wise, does it have a far greater success rate than players moving between sports?

 

 

  • Like 1

 

 

 

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

I think you missed the point of why I wrote what I did.

Your points about the superficial similarity and player movement have been covered in depth on the forum and it is fascinating that we still talk about it given the evidence of the unsuccessful nature of  most Sport hopping.

Getting rid of the term Rugby would be part of a process that conservative fans would always have a problem with, because it's as much a part of our history as it is theirs.

It was the regular back and forth movement of players between the codes at junior level to which I was referring, rather than high profile signings at pro level unsuccessful or otherwise. Calling RL something else won`t stop that happening, nor stop people noticing it happening. In terms of its frequency, there is no equivalent interchange between any other two sports.

One point I definitely have missed is your suggestion of the new name for RL. Making the word "Rugby" disappear from the official title is the easy part of the trick. If we`re just left with "League", that carries even more risk of causing confusion than "Rugby" has.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Rocket said:

I don`t think it would be seen as an empty rebranding exercise at all, if done on a coordinated level world wide it could be seen as a long overdue message to fans, the corporate world and the general public saying we are entirely our own game, we want nothing to do with rugby union, we are a completely different game, compare them if you want to and see the difference.

An interesting comparison is how far American Football or Gridiron has come from its rugby union roots to the point that I am sure that most of its followers would laugh at the suggestion of a common ancestor. About time we did the same thing. Let the dead bury the dead.

"American Football" or "Gridiron" are sufficiently distinctive names. Likewise AFL is "Australian Football". What`s the equivalent for RL? - "Northern English Football", "NSW and QLD Football". 

Unless we chose something entirely fresh, the most obvious generic global name consistent with any existing terms would be "League Football". Then we would have governing bodies called the League Football League, and the National League Football League. Not quite the clarification we`re looking for.

I understand the desire to rebrand, but could somebody please spell out what you want to rebrand to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

It was the regular back and forth movement of players between the codes at junior level to which I was referring, rather than high profile signings at pro level unsuccessful or otherwise. Calling RL something else won`t stop that happening, nor stop people noticing it happening. In terms of its frequency, there is no equivalent interchange between any other two sports.

One point I definitely have missed is your suggestion of the new name for RL. Making the word "Rugby" disappear from the official title is the easy part of the trick. If we`re just left with "League", that carries even more risk of causing confusion than "Rugby" has.

Well people moving between amateur sports is not ver relevant to the notion of changing the name of our sport.

I didn't make a suggestion about what the name would be afterwards and I still think we're talking at cross purposes here.

The argument I made was about moving on and taking charge of the story so it wasn't just written by people who don't care about our game. None of which you've refered to.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Oxford said:

Well people moving between amateur sports is not ver relevant to the notion of changing the name of our sport.

I didn't make a suggestion about what the name would be afterwards and I still think we're talking at cross purposes here.

The argument I made was about moving on and taking charge of the story so it wasn't just written by people who don't care about our game. None of which you've refered to.

I mention the movement between the codes as one example of the abundant evidence that will connect RL with RU in the popular mind, even if we alter the official name. If that image endures, the change is merely nominal. No substantive benefits will accrue.

Proposing a felicitous, globally-accepted alternative name is a prerequisite to "moving on" and "taking charge of the story". Without knowing what we`re "moving on" to, we won`t be "taking charge of the story". Far from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

"American Football" or "Gridiron" are sufficiently distinctive names. Likewise AFL is "Australian Football". What`s the equivalent for RL? - "Northern English Football", "NSW and QLD Football". 

Unless we chose something entirely fresh, the most obvious generic global name consistent with any existing terms would be "League Football". Then we would have governing bodies called the League Football League, and the National League Football League. Not quite the clarification we`re looking for.

I understand the desire to rebrand, but could somebody please spell out what you want to rebrand to.

I think that`s a tough one Pedant, expecting someone here and now to name an alternative brand name for our sport.

I think this is probably a classic case where Leaders are paid to lead. If through consultation and market research an alternative brand name could be found this is where it could be administered from the top, in a so-called blanket or total rebrand.

Now we know from these pages some will never accept it, for Gods sake there are still those out there fighting for the name of `rugby`, a lost cause if there ever was one. But at the end of the day a lot would move on, the next generation would hardly know better and the wider public would probably just shrug their shoulders and say `so what!` but at least we would still start to remove the shackles of being endlessly seen, and especially I mean where ever people see it written or hear it said, of being endlessly associated as an offshoot of Rugby.

I saw an article in a Kiwi on-line piece the other day that talked about `Rugby` and `Rugby League. It`s probably the same in many parts of the world, especially where one is played and the other trying to get established. I say throw off the shackles and let people talk about `rugby` and ` insert name here`. And by the way, to hell with the cross over of players juniors or otherwise, if they come over, they play our game.

Personally I`d go for `League`.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 And by the way, to hell with the cross over of players juniors or otherwise, if they come over, they play our game.

Personally I`d go for `League`.

I`m having trouble conveying this point about players crossing codes both to you and Oxford. It`s not especially important, but it`s the fact that when so many people have played both games, it confirms the superficial impression of similarity that most observers have.

"League" only has meaning in your part of the world because people know it`s short for Rugby League. Without the word "Rugby" alongside, there`s nothing distinctive about it. All across the globe it`s a word that refers to the competitions most sports are played in. 

What`s your new name for the NRL?

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

I mention the movement between the codes as one example of the abundant evidence that will connect RL with RU in the popular mind, even if we alter the official name. If that image endures, the change is merely nominal. No substantive benefits will accrue.

Proposing a felicitous, globally-accepted alternative name is a prerequisite to "moving on" and "taking charge of the story". Without knowing what we`re "moving on" to, we won`t be "taking charge of the story". Far from it.

Yet again the movement is irrelevant the confusion is as much caused by the term Rugby as by a lack of BRAND that is wholly ours and we can't have that until we clearly make ourselves seen as seperate and distinct. I admit that this appears to be totally beyond the capability of RL to achieve but that is largely due to will, & adherence to old stuff rather missing talent or ability. The image has endured because it's allowed to and it gives one side of the Rugby equation the upper hand in every area & aspect. The lack of a global outlook is what's missing in RL and part of that is the clinging to outmoded and outdated ideas for no better reason than it's the way it's always been and we find comfort int it. The notion that no one will notice would be part of taking control but that would be rocking the boat and there are enough RL followers who are risk averse to fill a small country.

  • Like 2

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

What`s your new name for the NRL?

 

10 hours ago, Oxford said:

The image has endured because it's allowed to and it gives one side of the Rugby equation the upper hand in every area & aspect.

One name that I have always liked, I thought it was a great name from the first time I heard it, and you`ll probably laugh given its` somewhat tarnished image, is `SuperLeague`.

If there is is one thing I think they definitely got right was the concept and title of SuperLeague and SuperLeague Europe. No rugby in sight.

Thus we could have `SuperLeague Australasia, eventually `SuperLeague North America`, SL Africa, I think it works. People could then abbreviate it to League when talking about the game, because abbreviating is what people do. You could then have NSW League, Championship League etc. etc.

Now whether it is `Super League ....` or `SuperLeague.......`one word or two I don`t know but I think the image and concept it infers could work. We are a global sport played across different continents with a Global brand name to match.

As a little aside which you may feel is a little ridiculous, I always liked the way there is an inference of the game being played by `SuperMen `and `SuperWomen` particularly given the way they do the `S` in the SuperLeague brand Logo. Personally I`m not into Superhero movies, but the younger generation certainly are and it is a bit of an attention grabber worthy of the participants of our game.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I`m having trouble conveying this point about players crossing codes both to you and Oxford. It`s not especially important, but it`s the fact that when so many people have played both games, it confirms the superficial impression of similarity that most observers have.

"League" only has meaning in your part of the world because people know it`s short for Rugby League. Without the word "Rugby" alongside, there`s nothing distinctive about it. All across the globe it`s a word that refers to the competitions most sports are played in. 

What`s your new name for the NRL?

I agree. For the majority of the population its like calling the sport Cup. Its completely meaningless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Rocket said:

 

One name that I have always liked, I thought it was a great name from the first time I heard it, and you`ll probably laugh given its` somewhat tarnished image, is `SuperLeague`.

In the years following the Murdoch coup, the phrase "Rugby Super League" was frequently in our media. Changing the name of our competition made no difference over here to the general assumption that the game was called "Rugby", now played in a Super League.

"Super League" has been adopted by many sports in many parts of the world as the title for their premier competition. Type it into a search engine and, alongside RL, you`ll get multiple results for Soccer, Cricket, etc. Only with the word "Rugby" in there somewhere can you specify that you want RL Super League. Without that distinguishing factor, over time our entries would probably slip further and further down the pages.

Good example in the UK is women`s sport. Our RL top division is called Super League. Unfortunately our top women`s Soccer comp is also called the Super League, and there`s a regular BBC programme covering it. If you said "Women`s Super League", 99% of the populace would think you meant Soccer. And in a "Women`s Super League" Google search, you`ll struggle to find anything RL-related amid all the Soccer content.

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...