Starting Again

[Toby Chopra]

35 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

How about this:

Don't split from Rugby Union in 1895 and stay a single unified sport.

As there would not be an amateur and (nominally at the elite level) professional code, the motivations and drivers to keep the sports distinct in this facet would not exist.

The single sport of ‘Rugby’ would therefore evolve differently over the last 135 years.

Professionalism would arrive much much earlier than it did for the Union code as there would not be the resistance to keep one version of the sport amateur – probably around the time that it was vying with Association Football to be the most popular football code.

Due to the new found professionalism and need to attract audiences, the singe code of Rugby would need to evolve the laws of the game to attract fans – such as reducing to 13 men and limiting the phases of possession to promote attacking.

I personally believe that if we did not see the split between Rugby Union and the Northern Union in 1895 then we would have a single code of Rugby and it would look more like Rugby League than Rugby Union.

My question is – as a fan would you rather the world look like it is today with our own identity as a sport, or would you rather the whole Rugby world were playing one code of Rugby that was Rugby League (HQ at Twickers etc).

Interesting scenario, but I do wonder if the evolution would have happened much later - if at all.

If the blazers had kept everyone on board in 1895, then the battle of ideas around pure amateurism would have been won by the establishment, and it would have remained the establishment social game - in England at least.  

So I'm not sure they'd have had the need to evolve the sport to compete with football -  like they didn't in the real timeline.

Maybe it would have stayed amateur and only marginally changed, at least until the 90s. Like GAA has without a major challenge to its status until recent decades.

The legal and economic pressure that forced professionalism into union in the 90s may still have occurred, but only then would they have had to seriously think about changing the way the game was played, and given the huge social base wedded to the traditional form of the game, I'm not sure how quickly they could have changed things just to suit the needs of the newly-formed professional union.

tldr: no schism, no rugby league-type game in existence today            

[Pulga]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

My question is – as a fan would you rather the world look like it is today with our own identity as a sport, or would you rather the whole Rugby world were playing one code of Rugby that was Rugby League (HQ at Twickers etc).

I'd rather the one code.

It would be so much better basically having the union international scene of the northern hemisphere and the Pacific of RL. 

 

[EggFace]

2 hours ago, Eddie said:

Expand the Northern Union quickly to take in Union clubs in places like South Yorkshire, Liverpool, Central Lancashire, Cheshire, North Linc’s and North Yorkshire. It would have doubled the population size of the Heartlands and we’d have a much stronger game today. 

And keep pushing the game in the real North like South Shields, Wallsend and push in Hartlepool and the Scottish/Northumberland Borders.

[EggFace]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

How about this:

Don't split from Rugby Union in 1895 and stay a single unified sport.

As there would not be an amateur and (nominally at the elite level) professional code, the motivations and drivers to keep the sports distinct in this facet would not exist.

The single sport of ‘Rugby’ would therefore evolve differently over the last 135 years.

Professionalism would arrive much much earlier than it did for the Union code as there would not be the resistance to keep one version of the sport amateur – probably around the time that it was vying with Association Football to be the most popular football code.

Due to the new found professionalism and need to attract audiences, the singe code of Rugby would need to evolve the laws of the game to attract fans – such as reducing to 13 men and limiting the phases of possession to promote attacking.

I personally believe that if we did not see the split between Rugby Union and the Northern Union in 1895 then we would have a single code of Rugby and it would look more like Rugby League than Rugby Union.

My question is – as a fan would you rather the world look like it is today with our own identity as a sport, or would you rather the whole Rugby world were playing one code of Rugby that was Rugby League (HQ at Twickers etc).

I still have hope for both codes to become one again but we need fresh heads in both codes leaderships to see the future of the both games.

[Damien]

55 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Interesting scenario, but I do wonder if the evolution would have happened much later - if at all.

If the blazers had kept everyone on board in 1895, then the battle of ideas around pure amateurism would have been won by the establishment, and it would have remained the establishment social game - in England at least.  

So I'm not sure they'd have had the need to evolve the sport to compete with football -  like they didn't in the real timeline.

Maybe it would have stayed amateur and only marginally changed, at least until the 90s. Like GAA has without a major challenge to its status until recent decades.

The legal and economic pressure that forced professionalism into union in the 90s may still have occurred, but only then would they have had to seriously think about changing the way the game was played, and given the huge social base wedded to the traditional form of the game, I'm not sure how quickly they could have changed things just to suit the needs of the newly-formed professional union.

tldr: no schism, no rugby league-type game in existence today            

But other sports have evolved enormously and I think people forget this. They are all very different than in 1895.

Football changed hugely before RL was formed and has always changed its rules to become more appealing. Gaelic Football was originally much more Rugby like, with running with the ball, tackling scrummaging etc. It was purposely changed only a few years before the split to distinguish it from Rugby and Football. Since it was first codified in 1887 it has continually changed and people are constantly suggesting further changes. Purists bemoan how the game has moved away from long kicking and high catches to one of possession, hand passing and one ruled by speed, fitness and swarming, blanket defence and there have been many tweaks in recent years, such as the mark, to encourage more kicking and catching. Even RU by the end of amateurism was nothing like it was even 10 years previous, which in itself was quite different to the 70s.

[idrewthehaggis]

The fairly strong class system of England, is the basis of two rugby codes, in my opinion. So unless that can be butterflied away, I struggle to see how unity could have existed.

But just imagine the Victorian RU is hijacked by public school boys from the City and Empire who can see brass - than Classically trained purists dreaming of an English Corinth - then maybe a more overt "Shamatuer" type arrangement would have roughly occurred.

Ironically 1930s France might have been where a "Rugby League" might have been born.

Edited August 11, 2023 by idrewthehaggis

[Toby Chopra]

12 minutes ago, Damien said:

But other sports have evolved enormously and I think people forget this. They are all very different than in 1895.

Football changed hugely before RL was formed and has always changed its rules to become more appealing. Gaelic Football was originally much more Rugby like, with running with the ball, tackling scrummaging etc. It was purposely changed only a few years before the split to distinguish it from Rugby and Football. Since it was first codified in 1887 it has continually changed and people are constantly suggesting further changes. Purists bemoan how the game has moved away from long kicking and high catches to one of possession, hand passing and one ruled by speed, fitness and swarming, blanket defence and there have been many tweaks in recent years, such as the mark, to encourage more kicking and catching. Even RU by the end of amateurism was nothing like it was even 10 years previous, which in itself was quite different to the 70s.

Yes, that's fair Damien. But I still don't see the logic of RU itself evolving towards league if the split hadn't happened. I'm not sure I buy the idea that they refused to change just because league had.

I still reckon a non-split union would have reached the 1980s largely looking like it did in the real timeline. This would include the changes you rightly refer to, but still nothing approaching league as RU wouldn't have had any more imperative to attract paying spectators than in real timeline. 

I still think it would have professionalised roughly when it did, so the question for me is would it have accelerated then to a game that looked like league? I think inertia would have stopped it going much further than it has in the real world.   

League was born of unique time, place and circumstance and created something special for the communities that played and watched it, but I'm not sure how much influence it exerted on other sports during the first century of its existence. Surviving in the face of all that was thrown at it was the success in itself.   

 

[Toby Chopra]

32 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

The fairly strong class system of England, is the basis of two rugby codes, in my opinion. So unless that can be butterflied away, I struggle to see how unity could have existed.

But just imagine the Victorian RU is hijacked by public school boys from the City and Empire who can see brass - than Classically trained purists dreaming of an English Corinth - then maybe a more overt "Shamatuer" type arrangement would have roughly occurred.

Ironically 1930s France might have been where a "Rugby League" might have been born.

If the gents who gathered at the George Hotel - who I'm guessing were mostly middle class industrial business owners - had not split, they'd have had to suffer for a few more years, but eventually some concession would have been made and their presence inside the tent would have helped.

Maybe after WW1, or the creation of the Labour party and strong unions, when lots changed for example. That's how these things usually work, the pressure from social conditions usually outs in the end, even if it takes another 20 years, and broken time payments would have eventually been conceded.

 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

Yes, that's fair Damien. But I still don't see the logic of RU itself evolving towards league if the split hadn't happened. I'm not sure I buy the idea that they refused to change just because league had.

I still reckon a non-split union would have reached the 1980s largely looking like it did in the real timeline. This would include the changes you rightly refer to, but still nothing approaching league as RU wouldn't have had any more imperative to attract paying spectators than in real timeline. 

I still think it would have professionalised roughly when it did, so the question for me is would it have accelerated then to a game that looked like league? I think inertia would have stopped it going much further than it has in the real world.   

League was born of unique time, place and circumstance and created something special for the communities that played and watched it, but I'm not sure how much influence it exerted on other sports during the first century of its existence. Surviving in the face of all that was thrown at it was the success in itself.   

RU wouldnt let RL players play the game, enter clubhouses and airbrushed players from history like they didnt exist. I think it is very likely that they wouldn't want to be seen changing to be more like RL and the game they hated. Copying the working class oiks from the North would be beneath them. They can't even admit it now despite making changes for decades copying RL.

As I said all other sports changed fairly drastically including completely amateur ones like Gaelic Football. This is particulalry so for contact sports like Gaelic Football and American Football. If anything I think it shows just how much RU has tried to resist change and keep parts that make it uniquely RU, like 15 players, lineouts, competitive scrums and rucks and mauls, whilst absorbing those from RL that it can get away with.

Also a unified rugby would have involved all of those fitter, faster players from the North who wiped the floor with their privately educated opponents before the split. If anything I would argue that this would have resulted in a rugby that would have had to change anyway, as RL did, and these changes would have followed much the same path. It could even be argued that if the split talk had been delayed by a decade that many more clubs and countries may have been brought across to that line of thinking and that a professional rugby would have taken control, like in Football, following the same trajectory as RL. It certainly wouldn't, and couldn't, have followed the same path as RU and just professionalise in 1995.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Damien

[Tommygilf]

28 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

The fairly strong class system of England, is the basis of two rugby codes, in my opinion. So unless that can be butterflied away, I struggle to see how unity could have existed.

I take your point and present cricket and football.

They overcame class boundaries. Cricket by slightly dubious tactics and a national spread, and football by the growing dominance of non-public school clubs winning. Splitting was never the only option.

Rugby fell behind the Association Football code quickly - and where it did keep a hold it was often because it was established first (ie West Yorkshire and Hull, much of Lancashire, Wales, Scottish Borders, SW England) or because a public school tradition kept it alive (London and the SE, the midlands). 

[OnStrike]

3 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

If the gents who gathered at the George Hotel - who I'm guessing were mostly middle class industrial business owners - had not split, they'd have had to suffer for a few more years, but eventually some concession would have been made and their presence inside the tent would have helped.

Maybe after WW1, or the creation of the Labour party and strong unions, when lots changed for example. That's how these things usually work, the pressure from social conditions usually outs in the end, even if it takes another 20 years, and broken time payments would have eventually been conceded.

 

The split was pretty much forced on the Northern Union clubs. More important than broken time payments was not letting the game be taken over by the working class as had happened with soccer.

The NU clubs couldn't have waited because in the years running up to 1895 they were being suspended from competitions, having to close grounds to paying spectators, not being allowed to set up proper league and cup competitions, having their players kicked out etc.

The Northern Union clubs would have been all but lost to rugby if they had tried to wait it out. The RFU had no interest in popularising the game, expanding where it was played or whatever, they were interested in maintaining the hold their class had on the game and not much else.

[EggFace]

On 11/08/2023 at 13:46, Damien said:

But other sports have evolved enormously and I think people forget this. They are all very different than in 1895.

Football changed hugely before RL was formed and has always changed its rules to become more appealing. Gaelic Football was originally much more Rugby like, with running with the ball, tackling scrummaging etc. It was purposely changed only a few years before the split to distinguish it from Rugby and Football. Since it was first codified in 1887 it has continually changed and people are constantly suggesting further changes. Purists bemoan how the game has moved away from long kicking and high catches to one of possession, hand passing and one ruled by speed, fitness and swarming, blanket defence and there have been many tweaks in recent years, such as the mark, to encourage more kicking and catching. Even RU by the end of amateurism was nothing like it was even 10 years previous, which in itself was quite different to the 70s.

It's a shame the great split didn't happen earlier then mayve we could of got the GAA, Aussie Rules and Canada all playing the same rules.

[Rolymole]

For Critical Race Theory read Critical Rugby Theory.  Every problem with RL is exclusively the doing of the historical RU overloads.  It’s all a bit weak.

[hindle xiii]

I would go back a letter in the alphabet and make the posts G shaped.

[south yorkshire]

On 10/08/2023 at 21:34, sam4731 said:

If you could strip down the whole of rugby league and start again, where would you start, what would you do differently and how would you see things progress?

dont let wigan join lol