Jump to content

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Constant tinkering with the rules and a never ending quest to speed up the game and eliminate stoppages can't possibly help.

Are you serious?  Do you really think everyone is that fickle? People need to realise, that not every match is a grand final.  And even grand finals can end up being lopsided.  2008 for example,

Despite yesterday's flogging, I am not writing off the Rabbitohs either, who were missing half their team for this match:  Latrell Mitchell, Adam Reynolds, Cam Murray, Josh Mansour, Campbell Graham, J

11 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

The application of a structured rule to obstruction is littered with examples of great play being called up for a penalty against when it should not.

I would be more than happy for only referees to call obstruction who can call it as they see it in real time.

I agree with that, as long as the on-field ref doesn`t have the same understanding of obstruction as the bunker.

Saw one yesterday in a women`s BHP game where the dummy-half passed to the first receiver who ran back behind the ruck. The first marker made a move into the tackled player who hadn`t budged after playing the ball, and the ref blew a penalty. That is emphatically not obstruction. If it were, every time the dummy-half ran the ball, the tackled player would be guilty of obstructing the marker.

RL`s potential is being unnecessarily limited. The refs are acting like coaches, organising the plays -" You can`t stand there. You can`t run here. If you run that way, you can`t stop, etc".

I suspect a major reason for people liking AFL is that the whole thing is stretched out, with few restrictions on where players can be. RL officials are using obstruction and knock-on rules to corral the play into tighter standard patterns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Take it to the any other sports then , it's a glorified rounders , so it's not even an American sport 

It already is there. But you did ask a question and it has now been answered.

(And nobody now believes baseball to be an American sport although its modern rules come from the USA. Its foundations are pretty well researched.)

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unapologetic pedant said:

RL`s potential is being unnecessarily limited. The refs are acting like coaches, organising the plays -" You can`t stand there. You can`t run here. If you run that way, you can`t stop, etc".

Refs have always done that though as a way of not having to call so many penalties.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The Future is League said:

The US didn't have an empire, but Baseball and Basketball are played all over he world with professional and semi professional leagues

The point is you are comparing Aussie Rules failure to be played outside Aus with RL. Both rugby codes are almost exclusively British Empire games, cricket too, hence the reliance on the Empire for the spread of these activities. Aussies never had an Empire to spread Aussie Rules to other parts of their Empire.

Some sports don’t need an Empire to spread (football and basketball being the major two team sports, tennis and golf the major two individual sports). This doesn’t apply to the rugby codes, cricket likewise Aussie Rules, so there is zip to brag about.

Regards baseball (aka rounders), after this British children’s game was exported to the US from Britain in the late 1700s to early 1800s, it never spread outside the US until it occupied Japan, Philippines etc. with its imperial influence also spreading to Venezuela and the Dominican Republic. It too has relied on Empire.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DC77 said:

The point is you are comparing Aussie Rules failure to be played outside Aus with RL. Both rugby codes are almost exclusively British Empire games, cricket too, hence the reliance on the Empire for the spread of these activities. Aussies never had an Empire to spread Aussie Rules to other parts of their Empire.

Some sports don’t need an Empire to spread (football and basketball being the major two team sports, tennis and golf the major two individual sports). This doesn’t apply to the rugby codes, cricket likewise Aussie Rules, so there is zip to brag about.

Regards baseball (aka rounders), after this British children’s game was exported to the US from Britain in the late 1700s to early 1800s, it never spread outside the US until it occupied Japan, Philippines etc. with its imperial influence also spreading to Venezuela and the Dominican Republic. It too has relied on Empire.

I assure you, bringing a sense of reason and objectivity to other sports on this forum will rarely be received well by the Blinker Brigade of @Exiled Wiganer and her newest recruit.

Edited by Sports Prophet
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DC77 said:

Both rugby codes are almost exclusively British Empire games

This is a remarkable revisionist version of Rugby League's history.

Rugby League did not spread because of the Empire. The mechanics for spreading union and cricket (armed forced, 'colonial classes') banned the sport of Rugby League and so the institutions that would have spread the game were its most vehement opponents.

Rugby League arrived in Australia and subsequently New Zealand in spite of the Empire, not because of it.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I remember the Melbourne vs. Sharks game you mention.  And the Sharks game against the Panthers this week was miles better.

I agree that the particular match in question wasn’t the most thrilling and like I said, as a neutral, I may have turned over myself.

Yin saying that, I can very much be entertained by the attritional game. A game where the arm wrestle in getting to PTB in the opponent’s half is an effort in itself and then to a point where you have a PTB in the red zone is the next test.

I find territory of late is far too easily obtained. In my memory, this has never been more prevalent than in the last two seasons. Add to that, the disparity between the top and the rest of the top 8 has neither been bigger.

That it was only two full seasons ago that at the end of the regular season, the NRL’s top 8 were only separated by two points, seems such a distant memory.

Edited by Sports Prophet
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

This is a remarkable revisionist version of Rugby League's history.

Rugby League did not spread because of the Empire. The mechanics for spreading union and cricket (armed forced, 'colonial classes') banned the sport of Rugby League and so the institutions that would have spread the game were its most vehement opponents.

Rugby League arrived in Australia and subsequently New Zealand in spite of the Empire, not because of it.

You are correct that league certainly wasn't spread through the institutions of the empire in the same way as union and cricket. However, if it wasn't for the less formal, familial type bonds of Australians, New Zealanders and Brits, would the game have spread?

The All Golds tour would not have come to the UK in 1907 if it were not for the informal 'bond of empire' links that many people had as individuals and communities (and indeed still do have). If that tour (or a similar one) hadn't happened, would the game have spread to the southern hemisphere?

Nobody from Brazil, for example, decided to tour the UK to play against the Northern Union teams in the early 20th century. Such a tour from New Zealand or Australia was always much more likely because of the links of empire.

So although it was private initiative rather than an organised empire-wide spread, the fact that the UK, Australia and New Zealand are all Commonwealth countries did have an impact.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

You are correct that league certainly wasn't spread through the institutions of the empire in the same way as union and cricket. However, if it wasn't for the less formal, familial type bonds of Australians, New Zealanders and Brits, would the game have spread?

The All Golds tour would not have come to the UK in 1907 if it were not for the informal 'bond of empire' links that many people had as individuals and communities (and indeed still do have). If that tour (or a similar one) hadn't happened, would the game have spread to the southern hemisphere?

Nobody from Brazil, for example, decided to tour the UK to play against the Northern Union teams in the early 20th century. Such a tour from New Zealand or Australia was always much more likely because of the links of empire.

So although it was private initiative rather than an organised empire-wide spread, the fact that the UK, Australia and New Zealand are all Commonwealth countries did have an impact.

Yes, I think you are right that the cultural bonds of Australia and Britain played a part in the spread of the game in 1908.

My point is that the spread of Rugby Union and Rugby League were very different with different dynamics... and the dynamics that spread the Union code were actively resisting the development of Rugby League.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Aussies never had an Empire to spread Aussie Rules to other parts of their Empire.

Empire is an unfortunate word but Papua New Guinea was considered a colony of Australia from when it was placed under Australian administrative control by the British in 1902 until it`s independence in 1975. I dare say in that time there would have been many attempts to introduce afl, but like in New Zealand, who some may mischievously consider the sixth Australian state,where several afl exhibition matches were played about decade ago, but there was just no interest and attempts were abandoned.

In fact our current Federal Gov`t is using Rugby League as part of it`s increased diplomatic push into the Pacific to win hearts and minds and to counter the growing influence of China, I think the Fijian Silktails are receiving funding from the Australian Government. Ironically though I believe it was Chinese money that funded the new League stadium in Samoa.

PM’s XIII wins game and hearts in Fiji (theaustralian.com.au)

If this article doesn`t open there are plenty of others if you google Aussie PM runs water at League game in Fiji.

 

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

This is a remarkable revisionist version of Rugby League's history.

Rugby League did not spread because of the Empire. The mechanics for spreading union and cricket (armed forced, 'colonial classes') banned the sport of Rugby League and so the institutions that would have spread the game were its most vehement opponents.

Rugby League arrived in Australia and subsequently New Zealand in spite of the Empire, not because of it.

Whilst RL is definitely a game moulded by antiestablishmentarianism, that doesn’t dismiss the fact that RL is a product of and dominated by nations of the British Empire.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dunbar said:

Yes, I think you are right that the cultural bonds of Australia and Britain played a part in the spread of the game in 1908.

My point is that the spread of Rugby Union and Rugby League were very different with different dynamics... and the dynamics that spread the Union code were actively resisting the development of Rugby League.

Agreed.

Whilst the institutions of empire didn't spread the game, the individual brits who moved to places like Australia and NZ (whose decedents are modern Australians & New Zealanders) did spread it. They were as much agents of empire as the military and administrators.

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

Empire is an unfortunate word but Papua New Guinea was considered a colony of Australia from when it was placed under Australian administrative control by the British in 1902 until it`s independence in 1975. I dare say in that time there would have been many attempts to introduce afl, but like in New Zealand, who some may mischievously consider the sixth Australian state,where several afl exhibition matches were played about decade ago, but there was just no interest and attempts were abandoned.

In fact our current Federal Gov`t is using Rugby League as part of it`s increased diplomatic push into the Pacific to win hearts and minds and to counter the growing influence of China, I think the Fijian Silktails are receiving funding from the Australian Government. Ironically though I believe it was Chinese money that funded the new League stadium in Samoa.

PM’s XIII wins game and hearts in Fiji (theaustralian.com.au)

If this article doesn`t open there are plenty of others if you google Aussie PM runs water at League game in Fiji.

 

Sounds like you have a good understanding of Aussie Rules history in PNG @The Rocket, let’s chat on it on another thread. As usual, I get drawn into a discussion about topics outside the actual purpose of the thread.

Great win for your boys today BTW.

See, I did it again 😃

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dallas Mead said:

How’s the draw for the Aussie Rules World Cup going champ? Troll.

 

23 hours ago, Dallas Mead said:

How’s the planning going for the Aussie Rules World Cup champ?  Troll.

 

15 hours ago, Dallas Mead said:

How’s the draw for the Aussie Rules World Cup going champ? Troll.

How’s about growing up or if you find that impossible put him on ignore 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barley Mow said:

Agreed.

Whilst the institutions of empire didn't spread the game, the individual brits who moved to places like Australia and NZ (whose decedents are modern Australians & New Zealanders) did spread it. They were as much agents of empire as the military and administrators.

Easy to forget the French in debates like this.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

This is a remarkable revisionist version of Rugby League's history.

Rugby League did not spread because of the Empire. The mechanics for spreading union and cricket (armed forced, 'colonial classes') banned the sport of Rugby League and so the institutions that would have spread the game were its most vehement opponents.

Rugby League arrived in Australia and subsequently New Zealand in spite of the Empire, not because of it.

Not really , it was still interaction because of the Empire 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/05/2021 at 15:55, unapologetic pedant said:

The Foxtel ratings for last night are Panthers/Sharks 207k, Eels/Roosters 272k, Tigers/Cats AFL 189k. The Kayo streaming figures are generally similar proportionately to the Fox box.

G` day Pedant, I didn`t know that Fox released the breakdown of viewing figures for Kayo, so I gather from what you are saying the afl streaming figures are roughly 3/4`s or thereabouts of the League`s. It would be interesting to have a reliable source of absolute numbers. Interesting though and would narrow the gap with the FTA figures again. 

There was an article in the paper during the week about Foxtel Group`s Kayo passing the I million subscriber mark, up from 440 000 in March 2020 and 921 000 in March this year, they were bragging that Kayo had added more subscribers in the last 5 weeks than Stan Sports total subscriber base.

While there was no breakdown there was this interesting snippet, 

     Foxtel Group`s audiences for the 2021 NRL season to date were up 13 percent year on year, while afl audiences                  were up 17 percent compared to the start of the 2019 season.

Interesting that they didn`t compare apples with apples and I wonder if this is because, as you have noted, in this post-bubble year afl figures have declined, so they are bumping them by including the lockdown figures they got in 2020 whereas League figures have continued to grow strongly.

On the FTA topic, channel 7 have started showing their saturday night afl game on their primary channel, to compound this, at the same time they are broadcasting the swans into NSW they are broadcasting the lions into Qld, this is a significant boost to FTA figures in each state as they now see their own team every week in a good timeslot on the primary channel. They do the same with the West and South Australian teams. That makes it very tough competing on FTA figures. It would be like having a high rating Queensland team broadcast into Qld, NSW team into NSW and Storm into Vic every Friday night.

Worth remembering though in 2019 Rugby League pulled 113.5 million viewers* across preseason, home and away, NRLW, Origin, representative and finals compared to 111.4 million for afl. This was a continuation of the 2018 result but before that League hadn`t outrated the afl since 2014. Also in 2019 regular season League matches rated on average 459 000 with an almost even split between Nine, Gem and Foxtel. afl averaged 430 000 with a 63/37 % split between Ch7 and Foxtel.

*this was a 6% decrease on 2018.

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

G` day Pedant, I didn`t know that Fox released the breakdown of viewing figures for Kayo, so I gather from what you are saying the afl streaming figures are roughly 3/4`s or thereabouts of the League`s. It would be interesting to have a reliable source of absolute numbers. Interesting though and would narrow the gap with the FTA figures again. 

They published them for the opening games of the respective seasons. NRL had 335k Fox box and 485k overall, so 150k streaming. The opening night AFL game was 243k with streaming similarly proportioned. 

The sporadic streaming info I`ve seen subsequently is broadly in line with these initial figures.

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

Easy to forget the French in debates like this.

Indeed. There are four nations with a firmly established history of Rugby League... England, Australia, New Zealand and France (Wales would be an interesting one but for different reasons).

There is a strong argument that institutions that helped to spread other sports such as Union and Cricket hindered League. Not least the armed forces that was the driver for imperialism and yet suppressed Rugby League.

Suppressed it successfully enough alongside amateur and university League that the sport didn't even establish itself in the rest of the United Kingdom. 

There is a good argument that cultural alignment through empire helped League to establish roots in Australasia but as France showsn it was not mandatory. 

It's an interesting discussion but a little off topic!

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

On the FTA topic, channel 7 have started showing their saturday night afl game on their primary channel, to compound this, at the same time they are broadcasting the swans into NSW they are broadcasting the lions into Qld, this is a significant boost to FTA figures in each state as they now see their own team every week in a good timeslot on the primary channel. They do the same with the West and South Australian teams. That makes it very tough competing on FTA figures. It would be like having a high rating Queensland team broadcast into Qld, NSW team into NSW and Storm into Vic every Friday night.

A while back I didn`t realise that the published metro ratings for something like "Seven`s AFL- Saturday night football" could be for different games in different cities. These Melbourne-based media outlets avoid revealing that relevant fact. It`s effectively presenting the figures for two games as one.

As you set out in your final paragraph, the true picture is only clear at the end of the year when the respective aggregates and averages are calculated.

Since the NRL/AFL TV code war is between competitions, it should also be borne in mind that, in addition to the AFL`s extra game a week, the bulk of one NRL club`s fanbase is not counted in Australian TV ratings data.

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...